TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Imported goods must be cleared without BIS registration certificate for qualified micro enterprises; MSME postponement valid until 28.08.2025</h1> <h3>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</h3> HC directed respondents to assess and clear the goods covered by the bill of entry without insisting on a BIS registration certificate, ordering clearance ... Seeking direction to respondents to assess and clear the goods covered under Bill of Entry, without insisting on the BIS Registration Certificate - import of 3456 sheets of packing plywood from Vietnam - Plywood and Wooden flush door shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024, which came into force on 28.02.2025 and which insist for compulsory use of standard marks and provides for a postponement of the effect of the Order to 28.08.2025, can be applied even to an importer or not - whether it has to confine itself only for domestic production as was intimated by the Government of India to the Chairman of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs through communication dated 19.03.2025? HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the petitioner being a micro enterprise is recognized under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises classification and seeking for exemption granted under the Order postponing the applicability of the provision until 28.08.2025. A combined reading of Sections 16 and 17 of the Act also makes it clear that the compulsory use of the standard mark/prohibition to manufacture, sell etc., of goods without standard mark is equally made applicable even to an importer. Therefore, the Act under which the BIS Certificate is granted does not really distinguish between a domestic production and an import. It is also quite clear that this is the statute which mandates BIS Registration Certificate. Reliance is placed upon a communication that was made by the Central Government to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. This communication at the best is in the nature of a notification given by the Central Government to the concerned authority. In this communication, the Central Government has informed that the additional time period of six months and three months provided to Micro and Small Enterprises over and above the date of implementation for Medium and Larger enterprises will not apply to imports. This Notification/Circular is violative of the provisions of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016. It is now too well settled that the Circular cannot traverse beyond the scope of the enactment which governs the field and if there is any clash, the Circular has to necessarily yield to the enactment - When the enactment does not distinguish between an importer and a person who does domestic production, the Circular cannot be pressed into service to come up with such a distinction and restrain the relaxation that was given for enterprises falling under the MSME Classification till 28.08.2025. If this is the ground on which the request made by the petitioner for assessing and clearing the goods, is kept in abeyance, such a ground is not sustainable. There shall be a direction to the respondents to assess and clear the goods covered under Bill of Entry No.3836297 dated 12.08.2025, without insisting for the BIS Registration Certificate. This process shall be completed, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order - Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the postponement of applicability of the Plywood and Wooden Flush Door Shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024 until 28.08.2025 for Micro Enterprises extends to imported goods as well as domestically produced goods. 2. Whether a departmental communication from the Central Government/Ministry of Commerce and Industry dated 19.03.2025, which states that the additional time periods for Micro and Small Enterprises do not apply to imports, can prevail over the statutory scheme of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016. 3. Whether customs authorities are obliged to assess and clear imported goods covered by a bill of entry dated 12.08.2025 for a Micro Enterprise without insisting on a BIS registration certificate, in view of the postponement of the QCO's applicability to Micro Enterprises. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Legal framework 4. The Plywood and Wooden Flush Door Shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024 (QCO) came into force on 28.02.2025 and expressly postponed application of its requirements until 28.08.2025; Micro Enterprises are identified in the QCO as beneficiaries of the additional postponement. 5. The Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 (BIS Act) defines 'person' in Section 2(25) to include manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, sellers and others, and Sections 16-17 mandate compulsory use of standard marks and prohibit manufacture/sale/etc. without the standard mark. Precedent treatment 6. No prior judicial precedent was cited or applied that distinguishes statutory application between domestic producers and importers when the statute's language is general; the Court treated statutory text as controlling. Interpretation and reasoning 7. A combined reading of Sections 16 and 17 of the BIS Act shows the statutory scheme does not distinguish between domestic production and imports: importers fall within the statutory definition of 'person' and are subject to the mandatory standard-mark regime. 8. Where a QCO postpones applicability of its requirements to Micro Enterprises until a specified future date, the plain language of the QCO must be applied in accordance with the BIS Act's inclusive definition of persons covered, unless the statute or the QCO explicitly excludes imports. Ratio vs. Obiter 9. Ratio: The statutory definition in the BIS Act and the QCO's postponement apply to importers as well as domestic producers when the instruments are silent on any exclusion; hence importers recognized as Micro Enterprises are entitled to the postponement. Conclusion 10. The Court concluded that the QCO's postponement until 28.08.2025 for Micro Enterprises extends to imported goods absent an express statutory provision excluding imports. Issue 2 - Validity and effect of the 19.03.2025 departmental communication 11. The communication dated 19.03.2025 from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to the revenue/customs authority states, inter alia, that the additional time-periods for Micro and Small Enterprises do not apply to imports and that imports landing on or after the due date must comply with the QCO. Legal framework 12. Executive communications and circulars must conform to and cannot override primary legislation; subordinate instruments inconsistent with the statute must yield to the enactment. Precedent treatment 13. The Court relied on the established principle that a circular cannot traverse beyond the scope of the governing enactment and must give way where inconsistent with statutory provisions. Interpretation and reasoning 14. The communication attempts to introduce a distinction between importers and domestic producers that the BIS Act does not make; therefore the communication is inconsistent with the statutory definition and mandatory provisions of the BIS Act and the operative effect of the QCO. Ratio vs. Obiter 15. Ratio: The departmental communication is inconsistent with and therefore cannot curtail or negate statutory entitlements conferred by the BIS Act and the QCO; it is not competent to restrict the QCO's postponement where the statute and QCO do not distinguish imports. Conclusion 16. The communication dated 19.03.2025 is not sustainable to deny the statutory postponement; customs authorities cannot rely on it to refuse application of the QCO's postponement to an importer who is a Micro Enterprise. Issue 3 - Direction to customs to assess and clear goods without BIS certificate 17. Facts relevant: the petitioner-importer is a recognized Micro Enterprise; the goods landed on 13.08.2025 and the bill of entry is dated 12.08.2025; the QCO postponement operates until 28.08.2025. Legal framework and reasoning 18. Given (a) the BIS Act's inclusive definition of 'person' encompassing importers, (b) Sections 16-17's applicability to importers, and (c) the QCO's explicit postponement for Micro Enterprises until 28.08.2025, customs cannot insist on BIS registration certificates for import consignments covered by that postponement period. Cross-reference 19. This conclusion follows from the analysis under Issues 1 and 2: because the QCO postponement covers Micro Enterprises and the departmental communication cannot limit statutory scope, customs' insistence on BIS registration during the postponement is unsustainable. Ratio vs. Obiter 20. Ratio: Customs authorities are obliged to assess and clear imported goods of a Micro Enterprise falling within the QCO postponement period without insisting on a BIS registration certificate; reliance on a conflicting departmental communication is invalid. Conclusion and operative direction 21. The Court directed respondents to assess and clear the goods covered by the bill of entry dated 12.08.2025 without insisting on BIS registration, to be completed within two weeks of receipt of the order; the writ petition was disposed accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
