Case Details: Shah Foils Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad (2025) 32 Centax 51 (Tri.-Ahmd)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha, Member (J)
- Shri Manish Jain, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Shri M.P. Solanki, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, an importer, contested the applicability of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification requirement on the import of stainless steel hot rolled coils, claiming that the said requirement did not apply since the shipment was made before the enforcement of the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order), 2016. The appellant submitted that, as per para 2.17(a) of the Hand Book of Procedure, 2015-20, the date of import must be reckoned with reference to the date of shipment or dispatch of goods from the supplying country, and para 9.11 of the same prescribed that, in the case of transportation by sea, the date mentioned on the Bill of Lading shall be treated as the date of shipment.
The appellant contended that, since the Bill of Lading bore a date prior to 07-02-2017, when the Quality Control Order came into force, the BIS certification requirement was not applicable. The Department of Revenue, however, argued that the importer had knowledge of the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order), 2016, at the time of shipment and was, therefore, bound to comply with its requirements. The matter was accordingly placed before the CESTAT Ahmedabad.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT Ahmedabad held that, in view of para 2.17(a) and para 9.11 of the Hand Book of Procedure, 2015-20, the date of import must be determined with reference to the date of shipment or dispatch from the country of export, which is evidenced by the date on the Bill of Lading. It observed that the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order), 2016, came into force on 07-02-2017, and since the Bill of Lading in this case bore a date prior to that, the BIS mark requirement was not applicable to the said import. The Tribunal further held that the Department’s contention regarding the importer’s knowledge of the Quality Control Order at the time of shipment was untenable and unconvincing.
List of Cases Cited
- Metro Bright Bar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2020 (373) E.L.T. 142 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Paras 2.4, 4.2]
- Royal Impex v. Commissioner — 2019 (366) E.L.T. 820 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 2.4]
