2006 (12) TMI 530 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the show cause notice issued u/s 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Authority to refer samples for testing to different laboratories.
3. Permission for reprocessing of imported goods.
4. Compliance with Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Show Cause Notice Issued u/s 124 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 21st June 2006 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, u/s 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, requiring the petitioner to show cause why the seized goods should not be confiscated u/s 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Sections 5 and 7 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and why a penalty should not be imposed u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Authority to Refer Samples for Testing to Different Laboratories:
The petitioner contended that once a report is obtained from the recognized Food & Drug Laboratory, Baroda, certifying the fitness of the goods, it is not open for the respondent-authority to refer the sample for testing to any other laboratory, including the Central Food Laboratory, Pune. The respondents argued that the exercise of power by the authorities is in accordance with the law and the provisions of the Customs Act.

3. Permission for Reprocessing of Imported Goods:
The petitioner sought permission for reprocessing the goods, citing similar cases where such permission was granted. The respondents emphasized that no laxity can be shown in matters concerning human consumption and that the uniform policy decision taken by the Board does not permit reprocessing suo-motu. The Court noted that contradictory reports from different laboratories warranted a policy decision by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in consultation with the Ministry of Food.

4. Compliance with Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955:
The Court observed that the standards under the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, were not complied with, as the melting point of the imported vanaspati ghee was found to be marginally higher than the prescribed standards. The Court directed the respondents to send samples to a reputed food laboratory for testing and to permit reprocessing if the laboratory opines that the goods will be fit for human consumption after reprocessing.

Conclusion:
The Court directed the respondents to send samples to a reputed food laboratory for testing and, if the report is affirmative, to permit reprocessing. Post-reprocessing, the goods should be tested again, and if found fit for human consumption, they should be released. If any report is against the petitioner, appropriate steps under the Customs Act should be taken. The petition was disposed of with these directions.