TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e cut in length for fitment over windows/doors either of standard width or special width. And yet, the goods were not only reclassified from tariff item 8302 4900 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to tariff item 7306 4000/7306 6100 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 but value of Rs.37,68,903 declared by the importer was rejected under rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 to be re-determined as Rs.1,15,97,516 by recourse to rule 9 therein even as the goods were ordered for confiscation under section 111(d), 111(l) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 without option to redeem on payment of fine, and relieved of duty liability of Rs. 84,34,688 along with applicable interest for that reason, and penalty imposed under section 112 and section 114AA on the importer, Shri Rohan Prakash, Managing Director, and the customs broker, M/s Gordon Woodroffee Logistics Ltd. All of these are under challenge before us. 2. Without any danger of pre-judgement, we may safely say that the impugned order is an extraordinary exercise of adjudication; the adjudicating authority has taken over the function entrusted on 'proper officer' under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e goods is sought to be altered when that is intended to reflect the description in the invoice. One of the two objectives of the impugned proceedings was, along with determination of prohibition, revision of value which is contingent upon revision of description even though one may well be a derivative of the other by intended use. 5. The customs authorities also sought intervention of a chartered engineer for determination of characteristic of the impugned goods and its value. The impugned order has been less than forthcoming on the contribution of chartered engineer to the proceedings and with neither the statute nor the relevant rules according such procedural intervention by such third person any sanctity. Even the attempt to seek refuge within the ambit of circular [circular no.4/2008-Customs dated 12th February 2008] of Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) fails with the impugned goods not being capital goods. 6. The impugned order has confiscated the goods under section 111(l) of Customs Act, 1962 for being in excess of declaration as the weight was ascertained to be 1,04,992 kg against the declared weight of 87,174 kg. Confiscation under section 111(m) of Customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e urged us to accept his proposition that articles listed within 'miscellaneous goods' lacks specificity that 'articles of iron or steel' do. He defended absolute confiscation on the plea that the goods were imported contrary to prohibition imposed under Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2020 and, therefore, violative of section 17 of Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016. He supported reliance on the report of chartered engineer for determining undervaluation as it was based on test report and market survey. 10. It is seen from the impugned order that the adjudicating authority has not denied potential use of the impugned goods as drapery rods for curtains and the revision of classification relies upon better fitment of 'circular cross-section' against tariff item 7306 4000 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and 'rectangular/square cross-section' against tariff item 7306 6100 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Thereby, the case of misdeclaration and, on the basis of which, 'value' was held as unacceptable, as well as of BIS certification requirement, was adjudged would be jeopardized. It is seen that 'tubes and pipes' are segregated as thre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ventionally, only final products and articles that go into deployment in production for consumers were required to be so compliant. It is, however, clear from policy developments in the Ministry of Steel, Government of India that controls over imported steel products were being tightened. In addition to the issue of a comprehensive list in the Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2020, an online system of confirmation of exemption was made mandatory where such certification was not furnished with imported goods; apparently, all steel products do not merit BIS certification at the time of import. On perusal of the list in the two tables appended to the Order supra, we find absence of ITC(HS) 8302 4900 therein. Even more significantly, the said description is not enumerated as input for pipes and tubes in Table 2 therein; the intent and purpose of condition 2(b) in the said Order, viz., that 'stainless steel pipes and tubes' be made from listed goods that are BIS compliant, appears to have been misconstrued by customs authorities. Consequently, the online waiver certification is not applicable policy prescription. In sum, the impugned goods cannot be charged with not bei....