2005 (8) TMI 529 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalty
2. Compliance with Indian Quality Standards for imported mineral water
3. Confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act
4. Redemption of imported mineral water under Section 125 of the Act

Issue 1: Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalty
The tribunal received two applications, one for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of a penalty of Rs. 15,000, and the other for early disposal of the appeal. After examining the records, the tribunal decided that the appeal itself should be disposed of at that stage. The tribunal allowed the early hearing application, dispensed with pre-deposit, and proceeded with the appeal.

Issue 2: Compliance with Indian Quality Standards for imported mineral water
The appellants imported mineral water that did not conform to the standards under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Despite producing certificates from different agencies certifying the water's quality, the Customs authorities relied on the CFTRI test report, leading to the confiscation of the goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The tribunal found that the imported goods offended the import policy of the Government, justifying confiscation and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act.

Issue 3: Confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act
The tribunal noted that the imported mineral water did not meet the requirements of the Indian Quality Standards, leading to its confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act was also deemed applicable in this case due to non-compliance with import policies.

Issue 4: Redemption of imported mineral water under Section 125 of the Act
Regarding the redemption of the imported mineral water, the tribunal considered conflicting submissions. While one party argued for redemption based on certifications from a Governmental agency, the other party emphasized the sole authority of CFTRI in testing the water's potability. The tribunal ordered re-testing of the mineral water samples by the PHO to determine compliance with BIS specifications. The case was remanded to the original authority for a decision on redemption based on the re-test results.

In conclusion, the tribunal partly rejected and partly allowed the appeal by remanding the case for further assessment regarding the fitness of the imported mineral water for human consumption based on BIS specifications. The penalty of Rs. 15,000 was upheld pending the final decision on redemption.