2025 (4) TMI 833 - AT - Customs

Imported LED luminaries without BIS marks on goods but on packaging not liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d)

CESTAT Kolkata held that imported LED luminaries were not liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962. Though BIS marks ... Absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 - imported LED luminaries - BIS No. and standard marks were not printed/embossed on the goods, but were printed on the package - HELD THAT:- The only reason for challenging the impugned order is that BIS Mark was not affixed at the time of importation as per MEITY Order, but is found printed on the packets of goods in question. Conclusion - The goods are not liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) and should be released for home consumption. The penalties and redemption fines imposed by the lower authority are set aside. Appeal of Revenue dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include:Whether the imported LED luminaries, which lacked the BIS registration number embossed on the goods but had it printed on the packaging, were liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.Whether the imposition of penalties and redemption fines under Sections 112(a)(i) and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, was justified given the alleged non-compliance with the BIS registration requirements.Whether the goods could be released for home consumption or required re-exportation.Whether the lower authority's decision to confiscate goods based on the absence of embossed BIS marks, despite compliance with labeling requirements, was valid.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Confiscation of Goods for Non-compliance with BIS RequirementsRelevant legal framework and precedents: The case revolves around the compliance with the Electronic and Information Technology Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012, which mandates BIS registration for certain electronic goods. Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, provides for the confiscation of goods that do not comply with legal requirements.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the goods were imported with BIS registration numbers printed on the packaging, which was in line with the labeling requirements under the amended order dated 10.02.2016. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of embossed BIS marks on the goods themselves did not constitute a violation of the BIS registration requirements.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal referred to the BIS registration certificates and the public notices issued by the customs authorities, which allowed the use of stickers for displaying the standard mark. The Tribunal also considered the appellant's compliance with the labeling requirements as per the BIS guidelines.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the amended BIS guidelines, which permitted labeling through stickers, to conclude that the goods were compliant with the registration requirements. The absence of embossed marks was not deemed a sufficient ground for confiscation.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal distinguished the present case from precedents where goods were confiscated due to a lack of BIS compliance, emphasizing the appellant's bona fide intention and adherence to the amended guidelines.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the goods were not liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) and should be released for home consumption.2. Imposition of Penalties and Redemption FinesRelevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 112(a)(i) and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, provide for penalties and redemption fines for goods liable to confiscation.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that since the goods were compliant with the BIS requirements as per the amended guidelines, the imposition of penalties and fines was unwarranted.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal relied on the appellant's compliance with the BIS guidelines and the public notices allowing the use of stickers for labeling.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal determined that the penalties and fines were not applicable as the goods were not in violation of the BIS registration requirements.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered the Revenue's argument regarding the absence of embossed BIS marks but found it insufficient to justify penalties given the compliance with labeling requirements.Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the penalties and redemption fines imposed by the lower authority.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'Accordingly, I hold that the goods confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act merit to be released to the appellant for home consumption. Consequently, I also set aside the penalty under Section 112(a)(i) and redemption fine under Section 125 of the Act respectively as imposed by the lower authority on the appellant in lieu of the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act.'Core principles established: The judgment establishes that compliance with BIS registration requirements can be satisfied through labeling on packaging as per amended guidelines, and that the absence of embossed marks on the goods themselves does not automatically justify confiscation.Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal determined that the goods were not liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) and should be released for home consumption. The penalties and redemption fines imposed by the lower authority were set aside.