Tribunal overturns penalty for goods lacking BIS markings, emphasizes good faith actions.

The Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant for importing goods without the mandatory BIS standard markings. The appellant's offer to re-export the goods and evidence of compliance by the manufacturer with BIS standards were considered in good faith. The Tribunal found the breach to be venial and not deliberate, leading to the refund of duty, redemption fine, and penalty. Compliance with quality control orders and importers' efforts to rectify breaches were emphasized in the judgment, highlighting the importance of good faith actions in such cases.

---

---

Issues:
- Confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Act
- Redemption fine, re-export, and penalty under Section 112(a)(b)(i) of the Act

Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The appellant imported "Cold Rolled Non-Grain Oriented Silicon Steel Sheet" in coil and Electro Galvanised Steel Sheet in Coil. During examination, it was found that the Cold Rolled Non-Grain Oriented Silicon Steel Sheet did not bear the mandatory BIS standard markings. The goods were seized for violation of the Quality Control Order. The appellant explained that the supplier missed putting the BIS marking, and they offered to re-export the goods. The appellant provided certificates showing the origin of goods and compliance by the manufacturer with BIS standards. The Additional Commissioner ordered confiscation of the Cold Rolled Non-Grain Oriented Silicon Steel Sheet, but the appellant appealed.

Redemption Fine, Re-Export, and Penalty:
The Additional Commissioner ordered redemption fine and penalty along with allowing re-export of the confiscated goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal found no test report confirming non-compliance with BIS standards. It was considered a venial breach as the goods were not marked with the requisite standard. The appellant's good faith was evident as they offered to re-export the goods. The Tribunal held that there was no deliberate breach justifying confiscation and penalty. The order of confiscation and penalty was set aside, and the appellant was entitled to a refund of duty, redemption fine, and penalty. The authority was directed to refund the amount within 60 days.

This judgment highlights the importance of compliance with quality control orders and the significance of good faith efforts by importers in rectifying breaches. The Tribunal's decision focused on the lack of deliberate violation and the appellant's willingness to rectify the situation through re-export, leading to the refund of deposited amounts.

---