TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Importance of Valid BIS Certificate in Imports: Upheld Decision</h1> The Court upheld the Commissioner's decision to confiscate goods and impose penalties on the appellant for importing CRGO Steel Sheets/Coils using an ... Confiscation of imported detained goods - Cold Rolled Grain Oriented (CRGO) Electrical Steel Sheet/Coils - want of the proper BIS certificate - forged/fake BIS certificates - HELD THAT:- The BIS certificate being a Bureau of India Standards certificate is issued by the respective Ministry in the favour of the manufacturer who further issues same to its buyers. Since the goods herein are CRGO Electrical Steel Sheet/Coils Section 17 of BIS Act, 2016 prohibit the import of goods without requisite BIS license and fulfillment of the conditions that the products should made the prescribed quality parameters/technical requirements of the relevant Indian standards and also should bear the standard mark - In the present case, it has come on record that the certificate on the impugned goods was the one bearing no. IS 3024:2006, whereas, as per Indian standards specification for CRGO the ISI marka at the relevant time, stood revised as IS 3024:2015 by the competent Authorities. It is observed that the employee of the appellant who was admittedly responsible for preparing the import documents including BIS certificate i.e. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Accountant of the appellant in his statement dated 7th March, 2019, admitted the recovered laptop to belong to him. He also admitted the documents retrieved there from to have been prepared by him including the excel work book named as BIS certificate saved in local disk of said laptop. Not only this, he also admitted for those excel sheets to be received in soft editable form of BIS/Mill Test certificates. It is opined that the documents on record do not support the defence taken by the appellant. The admission of Mr. Manoj Kumar, appellant’s accountant, about preparing BIS certificates on their own on the editable formats procured rather stands corroborated from the e-mail sent by the exporter about impugned certificate to be fake which otherwise does not bear signature of any competent authority - appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Validity of BIS certificate for import of CRGO Steel Sheets/Coils.2. Allegations of using fake/forged BIS certificate for import.3. Confiscation of goods and penalty imposition.4. Defense of the appellant regarding the authenticity of the BIS certificate.5. Admissions made by the appellant's employee and proprietor.6. Verification of the BIS certificate by the manufacturer.7. Decision on appeal against the Order-in-Appeal.Issue 1: Validity of BIS certificate for import of CRGO Steel Sheets/CoilsThe judgment discusses the mandatory requirement of a Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certificate for the import of Cold Rolled Grain Oriented (CRGO) Electrical Steel Sheet/Coils. It highlights that the BIS certificate is issued by the respective Ministry to the manufacturer, who further provides it to buyers. The judgment emphasizes that Section 17 of the BIS Act, 2016 prohibits the import of goods without the requisite BIS license and compliance with quality parameters and technical standards. It notes discrepancies in the certificate found on the imported goods, indicating a different standard mark than the prescribed one.Issue 2: Allegations of using fake/forged BIS certificate for importThe judgment narrates the investigation initiated based on information about forged/fake BIS certificates, leading to the search of the appellant's premises and seizure of incriminating documents. It mentions the detention of imported goods due to doubts regarding the authenticity of the ISI mark and the BIS certificate. The Show Cause Notice proposing confiscation of goods and penalties for allegedly illegally importing goods using a fake/forged BIS certificate is also highlighted.Issue 3: Confiscation of goods and penalty impositionThe judgment outlines the process of confiscation proposed due to the alleged use of a fake/forged BIS certificate in the imported consignment. It mentions the initial confirmation of the proposal and subsequent rejection of the appeal against the order. The appellant's challenge against the confiscation and penalty imposition forms a crucial part of the decision-making process.Issue 4: Defense of the appellant regarding the authenticity of the BIS certificateThe judgment presents the appellant's defense, emphasizing that the BIS certificate was not fake and detailing the process of document submission and verification with the supplier/exporter. The appellant argues against the allegations, citing the involvement of their CHA and the lack of fake documentation. The defense focuses on discrediting the accusations of using a forged BIS certificate.Issue 5: Admissions made by the appellant's employee and proprietorThe judgment highlights admissions made by the appellant's employee, Mr. Manoj Kumar, regarding the preparation of import documents, including the BIS certificate. It notes the involvement of the proprietor in the process and the discrepancies found in the documents and statements provided during the investigation. These admissions play a significant role in determining the authenticity of the BIS certificate and the actions taken by the appellant.Issue 6: Verification of the BIS certificate by the manufacturerThe judgment discusses the verification process conducted by the manufacturer, M/s. Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation, Japan, regarding the alleged fake BIS certificate. It mentions the denial of issuing the certificate and the submission of an original template by the manufacturer, highlighting the absence of signatures on the certificate in question. The manufacturer's verification adds weight to the allegations of a forged certificate.Issue 7: Decision on appeal against the Order-in-AppealThe judgment concludes by upholding the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the evidence and admissions presented. It dismisses the appeal, stating that the defense provided by the appellant is not supported by the documents on record. The decision affirms the confiscation and penalty imposition due to the use of an allegedly fake BIS certificate in the import process.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers all the issues involved, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and the decision-making process in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
