Case Law Details
Kelhome Impex Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)
After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the record, I find that the appellant filed the Bill of Entry and declared the goods as Hand Mixer which was assessed to duty of Rs.29,91,817/-and the appellant paid the duty. But thereafter the Department raised the objection that the said goods are subject to mandatory BIS compliance and the Bill of Entry was not certified by the BIS authorities and therefore , the same cannot be cleared for home consumption and subsequently the goods were ordered to be confiscated and allowed to be reexported on payment of fine. Further I find that there is no dispute on the identity or declared description of the goods and the respondent has not held that the appellant had wrongly declared the description for the purpose of overcoming the BIS standard and there is no finding in the impugned order that what is under import is Handheld blender and not Handheld Mixer as declared by the appellant. Further I find that without such an express findings, the conclusion drawn by the responded that the goods are covered by BIS Kitchen Appliances (Quality Control) Order is not sustainable
Further, from the perusal of the various standards as mentioned in the BIS Kitchen Appliances (Quality Control) Order, 2018 dt. 10/10/2018, I find that Handheld Mixer and the Handheld Blender are entirely different products having different specifications, mechanisms, performance, speed, power and even meant for performing different tasks. The differences between the two products have been cited above and perusal of those differences clearly shows that the language of the said standard itself would draw a clear distinction between Handheld Blender and Handheld Mixer. Further the contention of the Department that the said product was examined by the authorised officer of the BIS posted at Cochin and he has confirmed that the imported apparatus is liable for mandatory BIS compliance as Handheld Blender is without any basis and has been raised only for the first time at the time of argument. No such reference to the authorised officer of BIS or his opinion has neither been provided to the appellant nor made part of the impugned Order-in-Original and not even produced before this Tribunal. Therefore, this stand of the Department has no basis and is liable to be rejected. Further the Department’s stand that Handheld Blenders are not defined in IS:302-2-2014 is also not correct because various parts of the BIS standards give specifications for Handheld Blenders and Handheld Mixers as has been noted above. Further I find that the appellant has given clear distinctions of tasks that can be performed by Hand blender and Hand Mixer and the said table has been reproduced above. In view of these facts, I am of the considered opinion that the Handheld Blenders and Handheld Mixers are two different products and having different specifications, mechanisms, performance, speed, power and even built for performing different tasks. Further, I am of the opinion that the impugned goods are not liable to have a BIS compliance as mentioned in BIS Kitchen Appliances (Quality Control) Order, 2018 as the same is not applicable in the impugned goods and therefore I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the appellant and direct the Customs authorities to release the goods on payment of appropriate customs duty which the appellant has already paid as per his submissions. Hence, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. Stay application also gets disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT BANGALORE ORDER
The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 23/03/2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin whereby the learned Commissioner has ordered for confiscation of the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.2113571 dt. 26/12/2020 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. Further the Commissioner has extended an option to the importer to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs.3 lakhs under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962, solely for the purpose of re-export. Further the Commissioner has also imposed a penalty of Rs.2 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
