Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

A perusal of the entire BIS Rules, 1987 also shows that just like BIS Act, 1987, BIS Rules 1987 did not provide for regulating or prohibiting import of goods. Therefore, CRO 2012 has, in clause (3), gone beyond the scope of the Act and the Rules in prescribing a standard for import of goods and in prohibiting import of goods which did not meet the standards. Therefore, it is doubtful, whether in the first place, whether the CRO 2012 is legally sustainable.

19. Be that as it may, even if it is ignored that CRO 2012 was issued beyond the scope of the parent Act and Rules, the Schedule to CRO 2012 covers only "printers and plotters" at Sl.No.7. It did not cover multi-functional devices. The case of the Revenue is that Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology has issued a circular No.1/2019 dt. 02.05.2019 clarifying that multi-functional devices are basically printers with additional features and covered under the category of 'printers and plotters' as notified in the order. Revenue also relies upon another D.O. letter dt. 16.08.2021 issued by the Joint Secretary of the Ministry in the matter. If that argument is accepted, the entry of printers / multi-functional devices / plotters in the Schedule to the CRO 2021 at Sl.No.7 is redundant because if multi-functional devices are also printers, there is no need to include them separately in the CRO 2021. Therefore, the case of the Revenue regarding prohibition of import lies on a shaky ground of circular issued by MeitY which effectively enlarged the scope of entry in the order itself.

21. The present case however pertains to CRO 2012 with respect to which the following can be concluded:

(1) CRO 2012 was issued under the BIS Act,1986 and BIS Rules 1987 neither of which had any provision to regulate imports. Clause (3) of CRO 2012 therefore went beyond the scope of the Act and Rules and imposed controls over imports as well.
(2) CRO 2012 covers only to 'printers and plotters' and not to "MFDs".

The circular and the letters issued by the MeitY went beyond the scope of CRO 2012 and sought to apply them to MFDs also on the ground that they are also in the form of printers.

(3) Customs Act, 1962 is both a fiscal statute and also a penal statute. Import of goods contrary to any prohibitions not only render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act, it amounts to smuggling [as per Section 2 (39) of the Act] and the persons involved will be liable to arrest [Section 104] and conviction [Section 135]. It is a well settled Rule of Interpretation that fiscal and Customs Appeal No.75514 of 2022 penal statues must be strictly interpreted. Therefore, a prohibition / restriction cannot be imposed and goods confiscated based on letters / circulars of MeitY. If there is no explicit prohibition / restriction, nothing can be read into the entry in CRO 2012 so as to enlarge the scope of prohibition. Sections 111(d), (l) and (m) under which the goods were confiscated by the lower authorities are reproduced below:

....

(o) any goods exempted, subject to any condition, from duty or any prohibition in respect of the import thereof under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, in respect of which the condition is not observed unless the Customs Appeal No.75514 of 2022 non-observance of the condition was sanctioned by the proper officer;'' The case of the Revenue is that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 because of import of the goods was prohibited under the BIS Act, 1986 read with BIS Rules 1987 read with CRO 2012 read with circular and letters issued by MeitY. In our considered view, the MFDs were clearly not covered even in the CRO 2012 whose restriction of imports itself was beyond the scope of BIS Act, 1986 and BIS Rules, 1987. Therefore, confiscation of the goods under Section 111 (d) on this ground is not sustainable and needs to be set aside which we do so.