VIBHU BAKHRU, J. CM Nos. 3741/2023 & 3742/2023

1. Exemptions are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications are disposed of. CUSAA 2/2023

3. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter ‘ the Customs Act ’) impugning an order dated 06.07.2022 [Final Order No. A/50583/2022 – SM (BR)] passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‘the Tribunal’) in Customs Appeal No. 51910/2021. CUSAA 2/2023 Page 2 of 6

4. The appellant had preferred the said appeal against an order dated 10.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The order dated 10.08.2021 was passed in an appeal preferred by the appellant against an order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority pursuant to a show cause notice dated 28.08.2019.

5. The appellant had imported Cold Rolled Grain Oriented Electrical Steel Sheets from one M/s Tamaki Sangyo Co. Ltd. The said supplier had issued an Invoice dated 11.01.2019 in respect of the said goods. The Bill of Entry (Bill of Entry No. 2136252) for import of the said goods was filed with the concerned authorities on 20.02.2019.

6. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence initiated an investigation on the basis of the information that the said goods had been imported under forged/fake BIS Certificates. The consignment covered under the Bill of Entry No. 2136252 dated 20.02.2019 was examined by the officers of the DRI. Thereafter, the concerned Officer issued a Show Cause Notice dated 28.08.2019, inter alia, alleging that the BIS Certificate in respect of the said goods was forged and fake. The inspection certificate was stated to have been issued in the name of one M/s Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corporation and in turn was given to the supplier, M/s Tamaki Sangyo Co. Ltd. A copy of the said inspection certificate was forwarded to M/s Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal India Pvt. Ltd., which was the Authorised Representative of the manufacturer M/s Nippon Steel and Sumitomo CUSAA 2/2023 Page 3 of 6 Metal Corporation, for conformation. In response to the same, it was confirmed that the BIS Certificate was fake and was not provided by the manufacturer to the Supplier.

7. The Adjudicating Authority found merit in the said allegation. And, further held that the appellant was responsible for importing the said goods under the fake BIS Certificate. Statements of one Mr Manoj Kumar (Accountant), was recorded on 07.03.2019. He admitted that the documents retrieved from his laptop, which was seized by the DIR Officials, were prepared by him. These documents included an excel workbook named ‘BIS Certificate’. He submitted that the soft copy of the editable excel sheets had been received and the details were filled up by him. He, thus, practically conceded to filling up the format of the BIS Certificate.

8. After examining the facts obtaining in the case, the Adjudicating Authority had found that the goods imported by the appellant were covered under the fake BIS Certificate and the import did not conform to the standards as specified. The CIT (Appeals) did not disturb any of the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and by an order dated 25.10.2019, rejected the appellant’s appeal. This led the appellant to institute an appeal before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, found no merit in the appellant’s appeal. The findings of the learned Tribunal are set out below:

“8.1 The impugned consignment was detained and was proposed to be confiscated for want of the proper BIS CUSAA 2/2023 Page 4 of 6 certificate. This being a Bur