2007 (7) TMI 187 - AT - Customs

Appellants claimed exemption u/not.. 21/2002-Cus in respect of imported crude oil (Edible Grade) assessee claimed exemption in terms of the test result of Central Food Laboratory (CFL), Kolkata, revenue denied exemption in view of test reports of Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi contradictory test reports of two laboratory reports of CFL, kolkata will be given weightage hence exemption available appeal of assessee allowed

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand confirmation based on conflicting test results from different laboratories, benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, reliance on CRCL report over CFL report, misbranding allegations, applicability of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, authority of CFL and PHO in testing food products, relevance of Board's Circular No. 85/2003, necessity of Chemical Examiner and CRCL tests, imposition of penalty, confiscation of goods, applicability of previous Tribunal decisions.

Analysis:
The appeal stemmed from a dispute over the test results of imported crude oil (Edible Grade) between Central Food Laboratory (CFL), Kolkata, and Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi. The appellants sought the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus but faced rejection based on CRCL's report. The contention was supported by reference to a previous Tribunal decision involving similar circumstances. The Revenue insisted on penalizing the appellants for misbranding despite a subsequent favorable CFL report.

The Tribunal considered the applicability of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, citing a previous case where CFL's report was accepted under the Act's standards. The Act mandates CFL as the final authority in disputed cases related to food products. The Tribunal emphasized the statutory authority of CFL and Port Health Officers (PHOs) for testing food items, as per the Act and relevant Circulars. It was established that PHOs and CFL hold competence over Chemical Examiner and CRCL for food testing, with specific reference to a Board's Circular. The Tribunal highlighted the limitations of Chemical Examiner and CRCL, emphasizing the expertise and jurisdiction of PHOs and CFL in determining food quality.

Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the issue of penalty imposition and confiscation of goods, concluding that misdeclaration charges were unsubstantiated based on CFL's clear confirmation of conformity to PFA Act standards. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the Order-in-Original and allow the appeal aligned with the principles established in previous judgments. By following the precedent and reasoning of the cited case, the Tribunal granted relief to the appellants, emphasizing the relevance of expert statutory bodies in determining the quality and compliance of imported food items.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues surrounding conflicting test reports, statutory authority in food testing, penalty imposition, and the significance of previous Tribunal decisions in guiding the resolution of such disputes.