https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787143 BIS registration was required at the date of import (05.04.2025) under the Quality Control Order of 20.09.2024; the subsequent deferment by S.O. 2232(E) did not operate retrospectively to relieve pre supersession imports, so the regulatory obligation attached to the goods. The Tribunal treated the breach as procedural, noted absence of mens rea and that the goods remained importable subject to BIS certification by the manufacturer/exporter, and therefore set aside confiscation and penalty, imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 15,000 and directing release on payment within one week. en-us Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Feb 2026 08:36:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787143 BIS registration was required at the date of import (05.04.2025) under the Quality Control Order of 20.09.2024; the subsequent deferment by S.O. 2232(E) did not operate retrospectively to relieve pre supersession imports, so the regulatory obligation attached to the goods. The Tribunal treated the breach as procedural, noted absence of mens rea and that the goods remained importable subject to BIS certification by the manufacturer/exporter, and therefore set aside confiscation and penalty, imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 15,000 and directing release on payment within one week. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787143