Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 182 - HC - CustomsSeeking grant of release of detained goods - import of Lithium Ion Cell - it is alleged that the consignment in question was not in compliance with the requirement of BIS marking - HELD THAT:- The requirement of labelling and marking under paragraph 6 under Schedule II of the Regulation is clear to the effect that each “product” or the “package”, “as the case may be”, shall be marked with the Standard Mark, as specified in Annexure-II i.e. the sample illustrative mark. Thus, under the said regulations, it is clearly permissible to have a mark on the package, which requirement is met by the petitioner, in respect of the consignment in question of the two bills of entries. The respondents despite the clear provisions of paragraph 6 of the Schedule II Scheme I of the 2018 Regulation have chosen not to apply the requirement as it stands, however, they are applying Public Notice No. 136 of 2018 dated 8 October 2018 issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Customs, NS-III, Mumbai Customs Zone-II. On a plain reading of Public Notice No. 136 of 2018 dated 8 October 2018, it appears that the Commissioner of Customs providing for such requirement under paragraph 6 has actually deviated from the requirements of the 2018 Regulations, and more particularly paragraph 6 of the labelling and marking requirements as contained in Schedule II of the Scheme I, under the said Regulations, as noted by us hereinabove. In taking the position as assailed, the respondents also could not have taken recourse to the applicability of “RCR orders” (Requirement For Compulsory Registration) inasmuch as the RCR order was wholly irrelevant, in so far as the present goods are concerned. This inasmuch as the RCR order was applicable only to the “electronic and information and technology goods”, subject matter of Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement For Compulsory Registration) Order 2012, which provides that the standard mark shall be placed on the product and packaging both. There is no justification whatsoever on the part of the respondents, in not permitting to the petitioner, release of the consignments in question - there is no justification whatsoever as to how a different yardstick could be applied by the respondents to the goods in question, when similar goods under seven bills of entries were released and only two bills of entries were subjected to an illegal detention by the respondents. The goods are illegally detained and without any powers being exercised by the customs authorities under section 110 of the Act and that too for such a long period - Petition allowed in part.
|