2006 (9) TMI 49 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods Alleged that imported Hydrogenated vegetable oil is adulterated as well as misbranded Matter remanded back to original adjudication authority Accordingly action being taken

Summary

Issues:
1. Clearance of imported hydrogenated vegetable oil without conforming to specifications under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Confiscation of goods due to non-compliance with standards and tests.
3. Request for reprocessing goods and seeking clearance.
4. Comparison with previous judgments and legal precedents.
5. Distinction between adulterated and fit for human consumption goods.
6. Examination of test reports and certifications from authorities.
7. Consideration of misbranding charges and rectification.
8. Shelf life of the goods and time frame for obtaining necessary certificates.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the import of 295 MT of hydrogenated vegetable oil, requiring a no objection certificate from the Port Health Officer to ensure compliance with the specifications under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The goods were found to be non-compliant with the prescribed standards in tests conducted by the Central Food Laboratory (CFL) in Pune and Calcutta, leading to confiscation and imposition of fines.

2. The appellants argued that the goods were fit for human consumption, offering to reprocess them to meet the required specifications. They referenced previous tribunal and court decisions where goods deemed unfit for human consumption were allowed clearance for industrial use or after reprocessing. The appellants sought permission to clear the goods post-reprocessing, which was initially rejected.

3. The learned DR contended that the goods were declared adulterated and misbranded, distinguishing the case from previous judgments where goods were found fit for human consumption. The clearance was opposed based on the declaration of adulteration and misbranding.

4. Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the only reason for declaring the goods adulterated was the failure to meet the baudouin test. In contrast, the Bombay High Court case sought clarification from the Port Health Officer on adulteration and fitness for human consumption, receiving no adverse reports. The Director of CFL confirmed compliance with vanaspati ghee standards in an affidavit, which was lacking in the present case.

5. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to seek clarifications from the Port Health Officer and CFL, Calcutta. If the goods were found not to be adulterated and fit for human consumption, clearance should be considered post-adjudication. Reprocessing for compliance with PFA specifications and addressing misbranding charges was advised before clearance. Certificates from authorities were mandated within a month due to the goods' shelf life.

6. The appeal was allowed for remand, emphasizing the need for thorough examination of compliance, reprocessing possibilities, and obtaining necessary certifications before clearance could be granted.