Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 2014 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - wet dates - rejection of declared value as being unfit for human consumption - required parameters as per Food Safety and Standards Authority of India Act, 2006 (FSSAI); Rules and Regulations, 2011 not met - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT - The appellant is a hapless importer of wet dates and before he could enjoy the fruit the same was ordered to be re-exported. It is not the case of the Revenue that the item sought to be imported is covered by Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, nor it is found that the Revenue is justifying in terming the same as improper import. The exporter sitting outside the taxable territory of India has sent the items packed in such a manner which was without the knowledge or information to the assessee and only upon landing did the authority as well as the appellant come to know that the impugned goods though not prohibited was still hit by FSSAI. There was no prohibition in the first place to import wet dates but the additives/preservatives used perhaps made it improper under Section 25 of FSSAI. In view of the above, it will only add insult to the injury if the quantity of redemption fine and the penalty imposed is sustained and consequently the same are further reduced as a restraint, to Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively. Appeal is therefore partially allowed.
Issues: Import of 'wet dates' rejected under FSSAI regulations - Confiscation of imported articles - Reduction of redemption fine and penalty
Import of 'wet dates' rejected under FSSAI regulations: The appellant, claiming to be a bona fide importer of 'wet dates' from UAE, submitted a Bill of Entry for the import of 4,01,720 kgs of the same. The imported articles were found to not meet the required parameters under the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India Act, 2006 (FSSAI) regulations. The Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the imported articles, with an option for redemption with a fine for re-export and a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reduced both the redemption fine and penalty. The appellant, dissatisfied with the reduction, approached the forum for further relief. Confiscation of imported articles: The regulatory/testing authority found the imported 'wet dates' unfit for human consumption due to not meeting the required parameters as per FSSAI regulations. The Order-in-Original by the Additional Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the articles and provided an option for redemption with a fine for re-export under the Customs Act, 1962. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) further reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The appellate forum considered the circumstances of the case and made a decision based on the justification provided by the appellant regarding the import of the goods and the lack of knowledge about the additives/preservatives used in the packaging. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty: The appellant, being a hapless importer of 'wet dates,' faced the rejection of the imported articles under FSSAI regulations. The forum noted that there was no prohibition in the first place to import 'wet dates,' but the additives/preservatives used made it improper under Section 25 of FSSAI. The forum opined that sustaining the quantity of redemption fine and penalty would only add insult to the injury. Therefore, the forum decided to further reduce the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the appellate authority to Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively. The appeal was partially allowed based on these terms. This judgment highlights the challenges faced by the appellant in importing 'wet dates' due to non-compliance with FSSAI regulations, leading to confiscation of the articles and imposition of fines. The forum considered the circumstances of the case, the lack of knowledge about the additives/preservatives used, and the justification provided by the appellant to reduce the redemption fine and penalty.
|