BIS compliance relaxation applies only to manufacturers, while writ relief is barred by an efficacious customs appeal remedy.
An amended BIS certification relaxation under the Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 2025 was treated as manufacturer-specific, so an importer could not claim the extended compliance period for non-conforming imported goods. The article also states that a writ challenge to the customs adjudication order was not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appeal lay to CESTAT under the Customs Act, and no jurisdictional error, natural justice breach, or apparent record error justified Article 226 interference. The challenge to confiscation and penalty therefore failed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.
Issues: (i) Whether the extended time limit for BIS certification under the amended Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 2025 applied to an importer who was not a manufacturer. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy under the Customs Act, 1962.
Issue (i): Whether the extended time limit for BIS certification under the amended Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 2025 applied to an importer who was not a manufacturer.
Analysis: The amended order, read with the clarification issued by the DPIIT, was held to operate only in favour of manufacturers, including small and micro enterprises, and not in favour of importers. The relaxation was treated as manufacturer-centric and not goods-centric. Since the petitioner was only an importer and the imported goods did not conform to the BIS requirement, the benefit of extended compliance time could not be claimed for the imported consignment. The earlier order relied upon by the petitioner was distinguished as not having decided this specific issue.
Conclusion: The exemption did not apply to the petitioner as an importer.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy under the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The impugned adjudication order was appealable before CESTAT under Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. No jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or apparent error on the face of the record was found to justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The availability of an efficacious alternative remedy therefore weighed against writ intervention.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the confiscation and penalty order failed, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: A relaxation granted under a quality control order to small and micro enterprises applies only when the text and scheme of the order show it is intended for manufacturers, and writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised where an efficacious statutory appeal is available.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
