TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
The Plywood and Wooden flush door shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024 ('Order') was issued by the Government under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 making it mandatory for Plywood and Wooden flush door shutters to comply with the specified Indian Standards and to bear the Standard Mark.
The Order was stated to come into effect on 28.02.2025. However, in case of Small Enterprises as defined under the MSMED Act 2006, the date of coming into force was 28.05.2025 and for Micro Enterprises, it was 28.08.2025. The relevant extract of the Order is as under:
“1. (2) It shall come into force with effect from the 28th February,2025:
Provided that in respect of small enterprise, as defined under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006), it shall come into force with effect from the 28th May, 2025:
Provided further that in respect of micro enterprises, as defined under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006), it shall come into force with effect from the 28th August, 2025.”
The Order does not specify whether the extension of date for Small and Micro Enterprises is only for domestic manufacture or for both domestic manufacture and imports by the said enterprises.
On 19.03.2025, DPIIT, Ministry of Commerce issued a communication to the Chairman, CBIC that the additional time period for Small and Micro Enterprises will apply only to domestic manufacture and not to imports. For imports, the date specified for large and medium enterprises shall be considered.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Alankar Shipping and Trading Co. P. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director, Shri. Ramesh Nalliah Versus The Commissioner of Customs Import Commissionerate, The Additional Commissioner of Customs, The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2025 (10) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, held that the additional time allowed for Small and Micro Enterprises will apply equally to domestic manufacture or imports by such enterprises. The High Court relied on the definition of “person” under Section 2(25) of the BIS Act which includes a manufacturer as well as importer. The definition of “person” is as under:
“(25) 'person' means a manufacturer, an importer, a distributor, retailer, seller or lessor of goods or article or provider of service or any other person who uses or applies his name or trade mark or any other distinctive mark on to goods or article or while providing a service, for any consideration or gives goods or article or provides service as prize or gift for commercial purposes including their representative and any person who is engaged in such activities, where the manufacturer, importer, distributor, retailer, seller, lessor or provider of service cannot be identified;”
Further, Section 16 and 17 of the BIS Act under which the mandatory Quality Control Order (QCO) is issued also equally applies to domestic manufacturer and importer and does not make any distinction between them as regards the applicability of QCO. The relevant extract of Section 16 and 17 of the BIS Act is as under:
“16. Central Government to direct compulsory use of Standard Mark.
(1) If the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest or for the protection of human, animal or plant health, safety of the environment, or prevention of unfair trade practices, or national security, it may, after consulting the Bureau, by an order published in the Official Gazette, notify—
(a) goods or article of any scheduled industry, process, system or service; or
(b) essential requirements to which such goods, article, process, system or service, which shall conform to a standard and direct the use of the Standard Mark under a licence or certificate of conformity as compulsory on such goods, article, process, system or service.
…
17. Prohibition to manufacture, sell, etc., certain goods without Standard Mark.
(1) No person shall manufacture, import, distribute, sell, hire, lease, store or exhibit for sale any such goods, article, process, system or service under sub-section (1) of section 16—
(a) without a Standard Mark, except under a valid licence; or
(b) notwithstanding that he has been granted a license, apply a Standard Mark, unless such goods, article, process, system or service conforms to the relevant standard or prescribed essential requirements.
…”
Thus, the High Court held that when the parent enactment itself does not distinguish between a domestic manufacturer and an importer, no executive circular or communication can create such a distinction. Consequently, the benefit of the extended compliance period granted to micro enterprises under the QCO will apply equally to their manufacturing and import activities.