2007 (1) TMI 554 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Detention of betel nut consignments by customs authorities.
2. Applicability of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to ungarbled betel nuts.
3. Standards prescribed under Item A.28.04 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
4. Powers of customs officers u/s 6 and 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
5. Definition and classification of betel nuts as primary food.

Summary:

1. Detention of betel nut consignments by customs authorities:
The appellants, importers of ungarbled betel nuts, challenged the customs authorities' action of detaining their consignments for manufacturing Supari. They contended that ungarbled betel nuts are freely importable under the Exim Policy and should not be subjected to tests under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

2. Applicability of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to ungarbled betel nuts:
The appellants argued that ungarbled betel nuts, being a primary food, do not fall under the definition of dry fruits and nuts in Item A.28.04 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. They claimed that such goods cannot be subjected to tests for these standards, as they would not meet the prescribed criteria.

3. Standards prescribed under Item A.28.04 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955:
The court examined whether ungarbled betel nuts fall under the standards prescribed in Item A.28.04. It was determined that betel nuts are not dry fruits and nuts as defined in the said item. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Dineshchandra Jamnadas Gandhi v. State of Gujarat, which held that betel nut is not a fruit product.

4. Powers of customs officers u/s 6 and 10 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:
The court noted that customs officers have the power to subject food items to tests for standards prescribed under the Act by virtue of Section 6. However, u/s 10(2), no sample of any article of food, being primary food, shall be taken if it is not intended for sale as such food. The court found that the betel nuts imported by the appellants are primary food and not intended for sale as such food.

5. Definition and classification of betel nuts as primary food:
The court agreed with the appellants that the imported betel nuts are primary food, as they retain their natural form despite being de-husked. The court referenced the decision in State of Kerala v. Thankappan, which held that removal of the cover does not alter the natural form of primary food.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the Writ Appeals, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and declared that the betel nuts imported by the appellants are not liable to be tested for the standards prescribed under Item A.28.04 of Appendix B to the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The respondents were directed to allow the appellants to clear the betel nuts without further delay, provided other import conditions are met. The court also clarified that the appellants would not be liable to pay demurrages due to the unauthorized detention of the consignment by customs authorities.