RAMESH NAIR

1. The facts of the present case are that the appellant filed bill of entry No.8469439 & 8463369 both dated 07.02.2017 for clearance of goods declared as Stainless Steel Cold Rolled Coil Grade 201 width below 600mm Ex-Stock (Nickel below 1%) falling under Customs Tariff Heading 72202090. The Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 dated 10.06.2016 was issued by Ministry of Steel, Government of India. This order was to come into force after three months from the date of publication in the official Gazette. The said Stainless Steel Order prohibits storage, sale, distribution of any Stainless Steel products as given below and its relevant para is as under :-

"3. Prohibition regarding manufacture, storage, sale, distribution etc.-

1. No person shall by himself or through any person on his behalf manufacture or store for sale, or distribute any stainless steel product specified in the schedule, which do not conform to the specified standards and do not bear Standard Mark of the Bureau of Indian Standards on Obtaining certification marks license:

Provided that nothing in this Order shall apply in relation to export of stainless steel products required for export, which conform to any other specification required by the foreign buyer.

1.1 Further the Ministry of Steel vide Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control)(Amendment) Order, 2016 dated 9th September, 2016 has substituted the date of implementation i.e. for the words “three months”, the figures and words “180 days”. Again the Ministry of Steel on dated 6th December, 2016 has substituted the date of implementation i.e. for the words “three months”, the figures and words “242 days” accordingly, the BIS Certification is mandatorily required as per Indian Standard or marking on products with effect from 07.02.2017. The case of the department is that since the appellant have not followed the Stainless Steel Order, 2016 in respect of their import of stainless steel cold rolled strips coils, the goods are liable for confiscation accordingly, the adjudicating authority has confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine and penalty. Aggrieved with the Order-In-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that at the time of import of goods, the Stainless Steel Order was not into effect however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the ground that since the Stainless Steel Order, 2016 was issued much prior to the import they should have followed the condition laid down in the said order. Being aggrieved by the Order-In-Appeal, the present appeal was filed by the appellant.

2. When the matter was called out, none appeared on behalf of the appellant therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal.

3. Shri G. Kirupanandan, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order.

4. I have carefully considered the submission made by learned AR and perused the records. I find that there is no dispute that the vessel carrying the imported goods was already boarded by the Customs officer and the entry inward was already granted on 16.01.2017 and 31.01.2017. The goods were already unloaded in the CFS on 16.01.2017. Though the bills of entry were filed on 07.02.2017, the goods were already imported much before this date. The Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 is admittedly effective from 07.02.2017 therefore, at the time of import this order was not in force accordingly, the condition of Stainless Steel Order, 2016 was not applicable on the appellant for import of their goods. This very same issue has been considered by this tribunal in the case of M/s. Fortune Steels vide final order no. A/10553-10554/2020 dated 14.02.2020 wherin, this tribunal passed the following order:

"6. Heard both the sides and perused the records. As regard the facts of this case there is no dispute between assessee and the revenue. Admittedly the goods were shipped in the month of January, 2017. At that point of time Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 had not come into force, same came into force on 07.02.2017 only. In terms of the Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy,2015-2020 the date of import has to be reckoned, as per the date of shipment/dispatch from the supplying country. The date of shipment that is Bill of Lading which is in month of January, 2017, the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 was not in force, therefore the appellant was not required to affix BIS Mark on the product imported by them. The contention of the Lower Authority as well as the submission made by Learned Authorized Representative that since the appellant was having knowledge about Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 at the time of dispatch of the goods from supplying country they should have affix the BIS Mark is of no basis. I am surprised that how the Lower Authority has given such finding particularly when the order was not having legal backing to enforce such order in 2016."

5. The aforesaid decision is directly applicable in the facts of the present case accordingly, the confiscation of goods is not legal and proper hence, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed.