2016 (7) TMI 415 - AT - Customs

Import of foods items - goods failed to comply to the food safety law, most particularly prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules made there under - confiscation of goods - levy of redemption fine and penalty - Held that - the food safety law has provision for safety of consumers and certain norms are prescribed to be followed for import of the food items. Therefore, the deviation of the law has been brought out by learned adjudicating authority in para 3 of his order. No doubt, samples were not drawn in the present case for analysis. But the adjudicating authority has pointed out that section 5 (ii) and Section 2 (IX) (k) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 prohibits import of miss-branded food items into India. Under such premise, he ordered the consequence of confiscation and redemption fine as well as imposed penalty. He also directed the export of the goods on redemption thereof. Learned counsel for respondent says that the goods were destroyed. In view of the very smallness of the demand involved and finding violation of food safety law, redemption fine and penalty being also very meagre, we do not interfere to the adjudication. - Revenue appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with food safety law regarding imported food items.
2. Adjudication of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty for non-compliance.
3. Appeal against the appellate order based on law interpretation.

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with food safety law regarding imported food items
The judgment addresses the contention that the imported goods failed to comply with the food safety law, specifically the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and its associated rules requiring proper labeling of food items. The law aims to ensure consumer safety by setting norms for the import of food items. The adjudicating authority highlighted the violation of the law due to non-compliance with labeling requirements, leading to the order of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty. The respondent argued that the goods were imported for staff use, but the law's provisions were not met, as pointed out by the adjudicating authority.

Issue 2: Adjudication of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty for non-compliance
The adjudicating authority invoked provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, specifically section 5 (ii) and Section 2 (IX) (k), which prohibit the import of misbranded food items into India. Despite no samples being drawn for analysis, the authority found a deviation from the law and imposed consequences such as confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty. The judgment mentions that the goods were to be exported upon redemption, although the respondent claimed they were destroyed. The authority's decision was based on the violation of the food safety law and the need to uphold consumer safety standards.

Issue 3: Appeal against the appellate order based on law interpretation
The appeal was made by the Revenue against the appellate order that favored the respondent without a legal basis, solely on the presumption that similar goods had been allowed for import without scrutiny by other authorities. The Revenue argued that the law must be followed, and the violation should not be overlooked. The appellate tribunal, considering the smallness of the demand involved and the minor nature of the redemption fine and penalty, decided not to interfere with the adjudication, ultimately allowing the Revenue's appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the key issues of compliance with food safety laws, adjudication of penalties for non-compliance, and the interpretation of the law in the context of the appeal process.