ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 12.12.2025
CESTAT Mumbai- Absence of BIS Marking on Imported Goods Not Grounds for Confiscation Under Section 111(d) of Customs Act
This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.
In a recent judgment by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, a significant decision was made regarding the confiscation of imported goods due to the absence of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) marking. The case, Voestalpine High Performance Metals India Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-III, sheds light on the legal nuances surrounding BIS compliance and the import of goods into India.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Voestalpine High Performance Metals India Pvt Ltd, imported “Alloy Tool Steel” under two Bills of Entry dated 27.09.2023 and 30.09.2023. β These goods fall under the purview of BIS standard IS 3748:2022, which mandates that imported goods must bear BIS marking as per Para (6) of Scheme (1) of BIS Notification dated 04.06.2018. β While the goods conformed to BIS standards and were accompanied by BIS certificates, some items lacked the required BIS marking. β
The appellant admitted the lapse and requested permission to affix the BIS marking prior to clearance. β However, the adjudicating authority rejected this request and ordered the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem them for home consumption upon payment of a redemption fine and penalty. β The appellant challenged this decision before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who modified the penalty but upheld the confiscation. β Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the CESTAT.
Key Legal Issue
The primary issue in this case was whether the absence of BIS marking on the imported goods, despite their conformity to BIS standards and the appellant’s willingness to affix the marking under customs supervision, rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. β
Tribunal’s Observations and Decision
The Tribunal, presided over by Honβble Member Judicial, examined the facts and legal precedents. β It was noted that the foreign manufacturer held a valid BIS license for the imported goods, and the goods conformed to the prescribed BIS standards as per the test certificate. β The appellant had also affixed the required BIS marking under customs supervision prior to clearance. β
The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, including Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. vs. UOI and Prostarm Info Systems Ltd. vs. UOI, where similar issues were addressed. In these cases, the courts held that the absence of BIS marking was a curable defect and that confiscation was unjustified if the marking was affixed prior to clearance. β
Applying the same legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the absence of BIS marking was a procedural lapse that had been rectified. β Since the goods conformed to BIS standards and the marking was affixed under customs supervision, the confiscation was deemed unsustainable. β The Tribunal set aside the impugned order to the extent of the challenge and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. β
Key Takeaways
- BIS Compliance is Mandatory: Imported goods falling under BIS standards must bear the required marking as per the applicable regulations. β
- Curable Defects: The absence of BIS marking can be considered a curable defect if the goods conform to BIS standards and the marking is affixed under customs supervision prior to clearance. β
- Legal Precedents Matter: Previous judgments, such as Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. and Prostarm Info Systems Ltd., play a crucial role in shaping decisions in similar cases. β
- Prohibited Goods Definition: Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962, excludes goods from being classified as prohibited if the conditions for their import are complied with. β
Conclusion
This case highlights the importance of adhering to BIS standards while importing goods into India. β However, it also emphasizes that procedural lapses, such as the absence of BIS marking, can be rectified under customs supervision, ensuring compliance with regulations without resorting to confiscation. β Importers must remain vigilant about regulatory requirements to avoid legal complications, but this judgment provides a precedent for addressing curable defects in a fair and reasonable manner.
Source: CESTAT Mumbai
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379
Leave a Reply