2009 (9) TMI 498 - AT - Customs

Confiscation and penalty- Moisture content not conforming to standards under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Consignment analyzed by Senior Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory and only parameter which was specifically considered is regarding moisture content. Moisture content of imported goods is 10.20% while standard indicates that moisture content should not be more than 5%. Product being dry powder, moisture could be removed from the product by process of heating. Confiscation and penalty set aside and authorities directed to clear goods for reprocessing.

Issues:
1. Out of turn hearing of the stay petition.
2. Waiver of pre-deposit of redemption fine and penalty.
3. Confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) decision.
5. Adulterated goods import violation.
6. Re-processing of goods under the PFA Act.

1. Out of turn hearing of the stay petition:
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous application for out of turn hearing of the stay petition as the stay petition was already listed for the day. The Tribunal proceeded to take up the stay petition for disposal.

2. Waiver of pre-deposit of redemption fine and penalty:
After hearing both sides, the Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal itself as the issue was narrow. The Tribunal waived the condition of pre-deposit of the amounts involved and proceeded with the appeal for disposal.

3. Confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962:
The case involved the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem the goods on payment of a redemption fine. A penalty was also imposed under Section 112(a) of the Act. The lower authority's decision was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

4. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) decision:
The appellant challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, which rejected the appeal based on the non-conformity of the goods to the moisture standard. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that re-export of the goods was necessary and that departmental circulars were not binding in this case.

5. Adulterated goods import violation:
The consignment of tomato powder was found to be adulterated and misbranded based on the analysis by the Sr. Public Analyst. The goods were imported in violation of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Tribunal considered the moisture content and the violation of PFA Rules, 1955.

6. Re-processing of goods under the PFA Act:
The Tribunal considered the possibility of re-processing the goods to rectify the non-conformity issues. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal directed the clearance of the goods for re-processing and analysis for conformity to the PFA Act. The appellant was instructed to complete the reprocessing within a specified time frame, with further testing and actions based on the results.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order confiscating the goods and directed the clearance for re-processing, emphasizing compliance with the PFA Act and Rules. The appellant was given specific instructions regarding re-processing timelines, testing procedures, and further actions based on the results. The stay application and the appeal were disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →