2006 (4) TMI 151 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Conflicting test reports on the melting point of the vegetable oil.
2. Request for re-testing of the sample and compliance with the remand order.
3. Applicability of penalties and confiscation of goods under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
4. Admissibility of new requests to use the oil for human consumption or industrial purposes.

Analysis:

1. The appellant purchased a consignment of vegetable oil found to be adulterated due to conflicting test reports on its melting point. The Central Food Laboratory (CFL) report indicated a melting point of 42.5 degrees centigrade, exceeding the limit under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA). However, a report from M/s. ARBRO Pharmaceuticals Ltd. showed a melting point within the prescribed limit, leading to a request for re-testing.

2. The Tribunal ordered re-testing and cross-examination of experts, emphasizing the need for a fair adjudication process. Despite the appellant's request for a fresh sample for re-testing, the Adjudicating Authority complied with the remand order and upheld the confiscation of goods while providing an option for re-export within 30 days.

3. The Tribunal, considering Supreme Court precedent, upheld the confiscation of goods due to adulteration but set aside the penalty, citing the importer's reliance on the exporter's test report showing compliance with standards. The appellant raised grounds for seeking a third opinion, emphasizing marginal differences in melting points and international standards under the CODEX.

4. The appellant's arguments for re-testing and alternative uses of the oil were deemed feeble by the Court. The Court emphasized the seriousness of food adulteration, citing legislative intent to protect public health. The appellant's belated requests to use the oil for human consumption or industrial purposes were rejected due to lack of prior submission and uncertainty over compliance.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, highlighting the gravity of food adulteration and the legislative focus on eradicating this societal menace. The appellant was granted the option to re-export the goods, subject to conditions set by the Adjudicating Authority, with no costs awarded.