2025-VIL-2078-CESTAT-MUM-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - BIS marking requirement, curable defect – Import of 'Alloy Tool Steel' accompanied by BIS NOC certificates but not have the required BIS marking printed or embossed on them - Adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of these goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-compliance with the BIS marking requirement - Whether the absence of BIS marking printed/embossed on the imported 'Alloy Tool Steel' goods, as required under the BIS notification, renders the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the fact that permission was granted to affix the BIS marking prior to clearance and the goods were cleared after affixing the mark – HELD - The absence of BIS marking was a curable defect. The object of the BIS rules to ensure that only goods of prescribed standard enter the Indian market was satisfied once the required marks were affixed under the supervision of Customs authorities prior to clearance. The Bombay High Court in Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. v. UOI and Prostarm Info Systems Ltd. v. UOI, has held that confiscation is not justified if the goods conform to the BIS standards and the defect is curable by affixing the required marking before clearance - In the present case, the foreign supplier had obtained BIS registration prior to the import, and the test report confirmed that the goods conformed to the relevant IS standards. Therefore, the confiscation order is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page