2019 (7) TMI 1088 - HC - Customs

Re-export of goods - extension of time limit for re-export of goods - labeling defects - HELD THAT - The defects in labeling, as pointed out by the adjudicating authority, were of non-rectifiable character and therefore, the goods in question could not be allowed to be imported into India and therefore re-export was directed. We also note that despite there being no interim order in the present appeal, which is pending since 2013, the directions of the Tribunal to re-export the goods in question before 31.10.2013, have not been complied with by the appellant Assessee. By the lapse of time, the uselessness and devaluation of these goods in terms of the labeling requirements, might have further gone up and therefore, the direction of re-export does not call for any interference in the present appeal filed by the Assessee. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Food Safety Standards Regulations 2011 in relation to labeling requirements for imported goods.
2. Application of Division Bench judgment in determining labeling defects and justifying re-export of goods.
3. Compliance with labeling requirements for alcoholic beverages and the relevance of adhoc guidelines.
4. Justifiability of the Tribunal's direction for re-export of goods due to labeling defects.
5. Non-compliance with Tribunal's re-export directive and the impact of delay on goods' value.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the interpretation of the Food Safety Standards Regulations 2011 concerning labeling requirements for imported goods, specifically red wine, white wine, and extra virgin olive oil. The Tribunal extended the time limit for re-export of the goods till 31.10.2013, based on the labeling deficiencies identified by the Customs Department.

2. The Division Bench judgment in the case of M/s.Avenue Impex was applied to determine the non-rectifiable labeling defects, such as the absence of a "best before date" and ingredients list for alcoholic beverages. The Tribunal upheld the re-export directive, emphasizing the importance of complying with labeling regulations for imported products.

3. The debate centered on whether the relaxation provided under the 2011 Regulations for wine and alcoholic beverages applied to the goods in question. The Tribunal rejected the applicability of the relaxation, citing the non-compliance with labeling requirements, including the absence of essential information like the "best before date" and ingredients list.

4. The Tribunal's decision to direct re-export of the goods was based on the non-rectifiable labeling defects, emphasizing the significance of adhering to labeling standards for imported items. Despite the lapse of time and non-compliance with the re-export directive, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with its initial decision.

5. The non-compliance with the Tribunal's re-export directive by the appellant Assessee led to a decrease in the value and usability of the goods over time. The Tribunal noted the continued custody of the goods by the Customs Department and dismissed the appeal, stating it lacked merit. The delay in re-export further diminished the goods' value, reinforcing the Tribunal's decision to uphold the re-export directive.