Imported goods exempt from certification pre-amendment; Tribunal rules for appellant. Non-retrospective application emphasized. Confiscation overturned.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the goods imported before the amendment to the Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2012, did not require Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification. The judgment emphasized the non-retrospective application of the amendment and overturned the confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant, providing relief in the appeal concerning the imported goods.

---

---

Issues:
Interpretation of Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2012; Applicability of CBEC Circular dated 7.11.2014; Retrospective effect of amendments to the order; Confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962; Imposition of fine and penalty.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged an Order-in-Appeal dated 17.10.2016 regarding the confiscation of goods imported under Bills of Entry for warehousing. The issue revolved around the applicability of the Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2012, especially after amendments made on 4.12.2014. The Central Government amended the order, requiring Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification for certain steel products. The appellant argued that the amendment could not have retrospective effect, citing a High Court judgment. The Tribunal analyzed the timeline of events, including the issuance of CBEC Circular on 7.11.2014 and the subsequent amendment by the Ministry of Steel on 4.12.2014.

The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of the Steel Quality Control Order and the CBEC Circular. It noted that the goods in question, Prime Newly Produced Steel Deformed Bars, were imported before the amendment requiring BIS certification came into effect. The Tribunal referred to the High Court judgment cited by the appellant, emphasizing that the clarification and amendment should not be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal also highlighted the specific dates of the sales contract, invoice, and Bill of Lading, which were all before the amendment, supporting the appellant's argument against the retrospective application.

Moreover, the Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the reliance on the CBEC Circular versus the ITC (HS) codes. It emphasized that the real issue was whether the Steel Quality Control Order, as amended, applied to goods imported before the said amendment. The Tribunal analyzed the legislative history and the specific products covered under the order, ultimately concluding that the goods in question did not require BIS certification as per the amended order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant were unwarranted. It allowed the appeal, providing relief to the appellant concerning the confiscation of goods imported under the Bills of Entry. The judgment emphasized the non-retrospective application of the amendment to the Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2012, in determining the BIS certification requirement for the imported goods.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the goods did not require BIS certification as per the amended Steel Quality Control Order. The judgment highlighted the importance of the timeline of events and the non-retrospective application of amendments in interpreting legal provisions related to the import of steel products.

---