Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the confirmation of order for absolute confiscation of goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 3503904 dated 03-06-2019 valued at Rs.10,27,108/- under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with penalty of Rs 1,50,000/- under Section 112 (a) by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for want of BIS certification.
The Tribunal observed that primary ground for rejection of the BIS officials test report submitted by the importer appellant before the adjudication authority was that the sample forwarded by the dock officer to the concerned group was different from the photographs annexed to the test report. On the other hand the BIS officials had opined that photographs being secondary piece of evidence which appearances can vary with the angle of photography, it should not form the basis of his decision that the goods were ‘LED chains’’ and not ‘LED modules’. The Tribunal further observed that in obedience to orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) test was carried out and BIS authorities had submitted their report reconfirming that the imported goods are LED Modules standard IS 16103 and the Port Duty Officer, Mumbai forwarded the same report received through e-mail to the respondent department with a cover note that for such item compulsory BIS registration mark was not required.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal stating that order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for absolute confiscation of imported goods does not stand the test of law and the same was required to be set aside.[Crysta LED (P) Ltd. v. Commr. Of Customs, 2021 SCC OnLine CESTAT 36 , decided on 12-01-2021]
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together
