9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to confiscation and penalty imposed on imported RBD Palmolein under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Detailed Analysis: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Visakhapatnam-II regarding the imported RBD Palmolein. The goods were initially certified as "free from rancidity" by the supplier and independent Surveyors, and the Port Health Officer certified them as fit for human consumption. However, a report from the Chemical Examiner later claimed the goods were rancid, leading to clearance issues for the balance quantity. The Central Food Laboratory (CFL), Calcutta confirmed that the goods met the specified standards for Palmolein Oil. Despite conflicting reports from the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) and the Chemical Examiner, the Revenue initiated penal proceedings, confiscating the goods and imposing fines. The appellant raised several key points in defense, relying on CBEC Circulars, PFA Act provisions, and expert opinions. They argued that the CFL report should prevail over CRCL findings, as per previous tribunal decisions. The appellant emphasized that rancidity was not a standard under the PFA Act and questioned the reliability of the Kries Test for testing rancidity. They also highlighted discrepancies in testing methods between CRCL and CFL, advocating for the credibility of CFL's multi-test approach. The appellant contended that the goods could be reprocessed to remove any rancidity, and the presence of rancidity did not make the goods unfit for consumption. The Tribunal carefully analyzed the case, noting the statutory role of CFL in providing final opinions in disputed cases under the PFA Act. They highlighted the Board's Circular requiring food products to be tested by Port Health Officers (PHOs) under CFL jurisdiction, emphasizing the authority of PHOs and CFL over Chemical Examiner and CRCL. The Tribunal found that the goods met PFA Act standards based on CFL's report, dismissing the Revenue's misdeclaration charges and justifying the appeal by setting aside the Order-in-Original. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed was unwarranted, given the certification and compliance of the imported goods with PFA Act standards. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, overturning the confiscation and penalties imposed on the imported RBD Palmolein. The judgment underscored the importance of statutory authorities like CFL and PHOs in determining the quality of imported food items, emphasizing their expertise over other testing entities like CRCL and Chemical Examiner. The ruling rested on the compliance of the goods with PFA Act standards as confirmed by CFL, leading to the appeal's success and the relief granted to the appellant.
|
