2018 (3) TMI 1445 - HC - Customs

Confiscation - mis-declaration of goods - suspicion was that the consignment may contain the goods fit for human consumption, which has not been declared while filing the bill of entry in order to evade higher custom duty and a mandatory no objection certificate of the FSSAI - Held that - The issue raised by Revenue revolves on suspicion that these goods would be passed off as goods certified to be fit for industrial use/animal consumption but would be consumed in preparing sweets etc., which would be detrimental to the safety of those consuming them. It is on this basis that the samples were drawn and they were forwarded to the laboratory. The laboratory on examination of the same certified that the goods are an animal feed and not for human consumption. It is in these circumstances that consistent with the declaration of the assessee, the Tribunal concluded that factually the FSSAI certificate would not be necessary - In the light of the fact that consignment has not been misdeclared, there was no scope for any confiscation. Further the Tribunal posed a specific query to the Departmental Representative whether there was any prohibition for import of the goods for industrial use but to be consumed as animal feed, he could not point out anything beyond stating that they are not fit for human consumption. This definitely was not the answer to the query of the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order of reversing Commissioner (Appeals) and order-in-original on grounds of confiscation of goods for misdeclaration; Substantial questions of law regarding import of goods not for human consumption; Confiscation order based on suspicion of goods fit for human consumption; Tribunal's factual findings based on laboratory report and samples drawn by Revenue officials; Tribunal's conclusion that goods were animal feed, not fit for human consumption; Revenue's suspicion of goods being consumed as human food; Tribunal's decision not to require FSSAI certificate due to lack of misdeclaration.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's order reversing the Commissioner (Appeals) and the order-in-original, arguing substantial questions of law regarding the import of goods not meant for human consumption. The goods imported by the respondent were suspected to be fit for human consumption, leading to a confiscation order based on misdeclaration to evade higher customs duty and FSSAI certification. The Tribunal relied on findings from a laboratory report and samples drawn by Revenue officials to determine that the goods were not fit for human consumption.

2. The appellant contended that the goods were liable for confiscation due to suspicion of misdeclaration. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the issue was about misdeclaration and provided evidence from invoices and examination reports indicating that the goods were for industrial use as animal feed, not for human consumption. The Tribunal concluded that there was no misdeclaration and no attempt to bypass FSSAI regulations, dismissing the need for a substantial question of law.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings from the laboratory report and samples drawn by Revenue officials, confirming that the goods were animal feed, not meant for human consumption. The Revenue's suspicion that the goods might be consumed as human food was addressed by the Tribunal's analysis, which found no scope for confiscation due to lack of misdeclaration. The Tribunal's inquiry into the import prohibition for goods meant for industrial use but consumed as animal feed did not yield any prohibition beyond human consumption concerns.

4. The Tribunal's finding and conclusion were deemed not perverse or inconsistent with the evidence or legal provisions. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, upholding the Tribunal's decision based on factual analysis and lack of misdeclaration regarding the import of goods not fit for human consumption.