Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2026 (1) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....after referred to as 'BIS') under the Foreign Manufacturer Certification Scheme. The products manufactured by it fell under BIS schedule-A and have to answer the description BIS standard IS 5045:2019. 3. The petitioner imported the products, for which it seeks release of, on 29.03.2025 and 31.03.2025. The Bill of Entries for these imports were filed on the aforesaid dates. 4. An alert notice No.2 of 2025 dated 27.02.2025 was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, the Custom House, Mundra. This notice stated a clarification had been sought from the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (hereinafter referred to as 'DPIIT') regarding the applicability of Quality Control Order (hereinafter referred to as 'QCO') on imports. DPIIT had informed that the relaxation granted in the QCOs in the form of extended time lines in the MSME does not apply to import. It was stated that the relaxation is meant for obtaining BIS license under Conformity Assessment Rules of BIS and that the restriction on imports is applicable to all enterprises including MSMEs, like the petitioner, from the date of QCO. 5. In the meantime, the goods of the petitioner had arrived in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dical Textiles (Quality Control) Order dated 01.01.2025 and therefore, the extended time is not available to an importer. On these pleadings, the respondent supported the impugned order. 9. The writ petition was taken up for disposal on 31.10.2025. This Court held that in terms of the amended Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order dated 01.01.2025, it is applicable only to manufacturers and not to importers and since the petitioner was only an importer, the benefit under the order cannot be granted to the petitioner. Consequently, this court dismissed the writ petition. It also permitted the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy before the CESTAT. 10. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.No.3706 of 2025. When the matter came up for hearing on 08.12.2025, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The permission was granted. The Division Bench held the observations made in the writ order touching upon the merits of the matter or the interpretation of QCO issued by the Ministry of Textiles and the clarification /alert notice issued by DPIIT would have to be adjudicated by the CESTAT in accordance with law. 11. Thereafter, the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dly, he urges that the petitioner is registered as a MSME and has secured UDYAM Registration Certification in Registration No.UDYAM-TN-02-0261034 as early as on 18.12.2023. He states that the date of import for the purpose of application of the order, should be viewed as per Chapter I of the Foreign Trade Policy of 2023 in 1.05 (b) read with 2.17 of the Handbook of Procedure 2023. (iii) He further states that originally when the Ministry of Textiles issued an order on 23.10.2024, it did not apply to importer. Subsequently, the second amendment order was issued on 30.07.2025 which included the word 'importer' subject to certain conditions as found in the schedule. He states that the petitioner being a small enterprise, the time line for implementation, for such units, had been extended till 01.04.2025. As the Bill of Landing had been placed as early as in March 2025, the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for. 15. Above all, he states that since CESTAT has allowed the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner in Miscellaneous Application No.41108 of 2025 on 22.12.2025, the petitioner is entitled to seek release of the subject goods. 16. Per contra, Mr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vided that if any manufacturer certified by the Bureau or any manufacturer who has applied for certification to the Bureau for the goods of articles covered under Schedule A of the Principal Order, declares prior to the commencement of the timeline of implementation as mentioned in this Order, under subsection (4) of section 18 of the Bureau if Indian Standards, Act 2016 (11 of 2016) its old stock products without Bureau of Indian Standards Mark manufactured or imported prior to such commencement, such manufacturer shall be permitted to sell or display or offer to sell such declared stock up to 30th June, 2025." "Provided that where any manufacturer certified by the Bureau, or any manufacturer who has applied to the Bureau for certification in respect of the goods or articles specified in column (2) of Schedule A to the principal Order, declares prior to the date specified in column (5) of the said Schedule that their old stock, manufactured or imported prior to such date, does not bear the standards Mark, such manufacturer or importer shall be permitted to sell, display or offer to sell the declared stock up to 31st December, 2025." 20. A careful perusal of the same sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ine as well as confiscation of the goods have been kept in abeyance pending disposal of the appeal. 26. It is here that Section 125 of the Customs Act is relevant. Under Section 125 of the Customs Act, the adjudicating officer has the option to give to the owner of the goods, even if the importation or exportation of the goods are prohibited under the Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force, the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. Hence, though Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran pleads that the petitioner is entitled to release the goods unconditionally, I am not in agreement with the same. 27. A combined reading of the QCOs points out the following: (i) it does not apply to a manufacturer certified by BIS or (ii) to a manufacturer who has applied to the Bureau for certification of the goods specified in Scheme II of the Schedule A and (iii) declares that the whole stock available with the manufacturer or an importer, prior to 01.04.2025, does not bear the standard mark (iv) then such a manufacturer or importer shall be permitted to sell, display or offer to sell declared stock up till 31.12.2025. 28. It is not in dispute ....