2024 (6) TMI 201 - AT - Customs

Seeking permission for reexport 4536 kgs. of Organic Cashew Kernel SWP imported - prayer for re-export of consignments after subjecting the concerned goods to dry heating - NOC has been denied by FSSAI - amendment claiming benefit of N/N.158/1995-Cus. dated 14.11.1995 - HELD THAT - The appellant had earlier exported the total consignment of 400 cartons which were returned by the overseas buyer and when the re-imported, they filed Bill of Entry to take the goods for home consumption, by claiming the benefit of Notification No.45/2017. The test report for 200 cartons by FSSAI disclosed that it is not conforming to the safety standards prescribed under the Food Safety Standards (Food Product Standards Food Additives) Regulation, 2011. The appellant consequently requested to allow them to re-export the goods after minor processing viz. dry heating in the Customs premises to an overseas buyer. The Adjudicating Officer rejected the same observing that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy and therefore goods are liable for confiscation and consequently confiscated the said goods and directed its destruction and imposed penalty. There are no substance in the finding of authorities below which rests on the reasoning that the appellant initially claimed the benefit of Notification No.45/2017, later when it was found that out of 400 cartons, 200 cartons do not conform the FSSAI standards and hence cannot be cleared for home consumption, requested amendment to Bill of Entry seeking benefit of Notification No.158/95. Cus dated 14.11.1995 for re-export of the goods after making necessary re-processing like dry heating - the goods lying in the Customs warehouse cannot be said to be unfit for human consumption and since the appellant intend to reexport the said goods to overseas buyer; therefore there is no justification in not acceding to such request in absence of any specific violations of the Foreign Trade Policy and provisions of law for such re-export. The impugned orders directing confiscation and destruction of goods and penalty are set aside and the Department is directed to allow the appellant to carry out the process of dry heating in the premises of the Customs and re-export the goods at the earliest, but not later than a month from the date of receipt of this order. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant can be allowed to reexport 4536 kgs. of Organic Cashew Kernel SWP imported against Bill of Entry No.8524578 dated 03.05.2022.

Analysis:
The appellant initially exported 400 cartons of Organic Cashew Kernel SWP which were rejected by the overseas buyer due to label mismatch and returned to the Cochin Port. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry claiming exemption under Notification No.45/2017-Cus but faced rejection from FSSAI. The adjudicating authority held the goods liable for confiscation under the Customs Act and imposed penalties. The appeal to the Commissioner(Appeals) was rejected, leading to a writ petition in the Kerala High Court, which was not entertained. The appellant then approached the CESTAT Bangalore. The appellant conducted tests showing the goods were fit for human consumption, arguing for re-export after dry heating.

The key issue was whether the appellant could re-export the 4536 kgs. of Organic Cashew Kernel SWP. The appellant had exported the goods, faced rejection, and re-imported them, seeking to re-export after processing. The FSSAI report deemed a portion of the goods unfit for home consumption. The appellant requested an amendment for re-export under a different notification. The authorities had confiscated the goods and imposed penalties based on non-conformity to FSSAI standards.

The Tribunal found no merit in the authorities' decision. The appellant's request for re-export after dry heating was justified as the goods were not declared unfit for human consumption by the FSSAI. The latest test report confirmed compliance with FSSAI standards. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders for confiscation, destruction, and penalties, directing the Department to allow the re-export after processing within a month.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was permitted to re-export the goods after dry heating. The Tribunal found no justification for the confiscation and penalties imposed, as the goods were deemed fit for human consumption after testing and processing.