9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Adulteration of imported vegetable oil for human consumption. 2. Compliance with Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules. 3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. 4. Retesting of the sample and validity of results. Analysis: 1. The appellant imported Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil meant for human consumption, which was found adulterated based on the melting point test conducted by Central Food Laboratory (CFL), Ghaziabad. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty on the appellant. The appellant contended that no fresh sample was taken for retesting, and only a part of the original sample was retested. The appellant argued that the vegetable oil was fit for human consumption within a specific temperature range, and the melting point exceeded the limit prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Rules, 1955. 2. The appellant raised concerns regarding the retesting process and the standards set by the PFA Rules for food meant for human consumption. The Revenue relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing strict adherence to the PFA Rules for food items intended for human consumption. The PFA Act, 1954, defines adulteration based on prescribed standards and limits, with adulterated food items being prohibited under the Customs Act. The Supreme Court's ruling highlighted the legislative intent behind the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to safeguard human life from unwholesome food products. 3. The sample was tested twice, both times showing a melting point of 42.5^0C, which exceeded the permissible range of 31^0C to 41^0C under the PFA Rules. Considering the seriousness of food adulteration and its impact on public health, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods as they were deemed adulterated. However, taking into account the circumstances, including the melting point information provided by the exporter, the Tribunal decided that the appellant was not liable for a penalty and set it aside. The impugned order was upheld except for the penalty imposition. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the adherence to PFA Rules, the significance of preventing food adulteration for public health, and the specific circumstances of the case that influenced the decision to confiscate the goods but not impose a penalty on the appellant.
|
