2013 (6) TMI 327 - HC - Customs

Confiscation - food safety - shelf life of the shrimp - import for the purpose of re-export - Bill of Entry, dated 7.7.2011 - it had been shown on the carton boxes, as Best Before Use , as 30.4.2011 - the respondent had passed an Order-in-Original No.18294 of 2012, dated 14.2.2012, confiscating the shrimps imported by the petitioner, for the purpose of re-export. By the said order, the petitioner had also been imposed with the penalty. - held that - it is clear that the principles of natural justice had been followed, by the respondent, while passing the impugned order, dated 14.2.2012. Even though various grounds had been raised on behalf of the petitioner company, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter, as it is open to the petitioner Company to avail the alternative remedy of appeal available to it. It is not the case of the petitioner Company that the respondent does not have the authority or jurisdiction to pass the Order-in-Original No.18294 of 2012, dated 14.2.2012. The reason that the CESTAT is not sitting due to vacancy in its Chennai Bench cannot be a good reason for this Court to interfere with the order of the respondent, dated 14.2.2012, as prayed for by the petitioner company, in the present writ petition. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Export of shrimps with disputed shelf life and subsequent re-import for re-export.
2. Confiscation of shrimps and imposition of penalty by the respondent.
3. Appeal to CESTAT and subsequent writ petition before the High Court challenging the order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a recognized exporter of shrimps, exported goods to Canada with a shelf life of 2 years. The foreign customer returned a portion due to alleged defective packing. The petitioner attempted to re-export the returned goods but faced refusal by authorities based on the "Best Before Use" date discrepancy. The petitioner contended the shelf life was valid for 24 months, supported by certifications and circulars exempting re-exported food items. The respondent, however, confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty, leading to the petitioner's appeal to CESTAT and subsequent writ petition.

2. The respondent justified the confiscation citing the expired "Best Before Date" on the cartons, leading to the goods' destruction. Despite granting a personal hearing and considering submissions, the respondent upheld the confiscation and penalty, prompting the petitioner's appeal. The respondent argued that the shelf life claim was unsubstantiated due to labeling discrepancies, emphasizing the goods' unsuitability for human consumption. The respondent's order was reasoned and directed destruction of the goods with a penalty, leading to the petitioner's writ petition challenging the order.

3. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, highlighting the availability of an alternative remedy through appealing to CESTAT. Emphasizing that principles of natural justice were followed, the court declined to delve into the case's merits, urging the petitioner to pursue the available legal recourse. The court noted that the respondent's order was within its jurisdiction and authority, rejecting the petitioner's plea to intervene due to CESTAT's non-sitting status. The dismissal of the writ petition was accompanied by an invitation for the petitioner to utilize the legal avenues for appeal, thus concluding the legal proceedings.