2019 (10) TMI 338 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of goods - import of Betel nuts - it was alleged that the goods were deteriorated in quality and is not fit for human consumption - Notification under section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - HELD THAT - It is absolutely plain that the observation of the Division Bench that the respondents had been knocked out was to be taken as prima facie. The Ghaziabad report along with all other evidence, which the appellant had produced to prove that the goods were fit for human consumption at the time of importation and thereafter, were to be considered by the Hon ble first court on the basis of the affidavits to be filed and the exception to the report. The case in the writ application as a whole was also to be considered by the Hon ble first court upon exchange of affidavits. We do not find from the said order dated 13th January 2016 that any point taken in the writ application was closed by it. Impugned order set aside - the writ remanded to the Hon ble first court with a request to decide the same as early as possible, especially considering the fact that six years have passed since importation of the goods.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of imported betel nuts.
2. Allegations of deterioration in quality due to negligence.
3. Compliance with import regulations and testing procedures.
4. Conflicting reports from different food laboratories.
5. Judicial interpretation of the evidence and findings.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported a consignment of betel nuts which were seized and confiscated by the Customs. The main contention was that the goods were fit for human consumption at the time of importation, and the actions of the respondents were challenged as being unlawful.

2. The appellant alleged that the goods had deteriorated in quality due to the negligence of the respondents. The appellant sought damages for the alleged deterioration, emphasizing that the initial report at the time of importation deemed the goods fit for human consumption.

3. The case involved compliance with import regulations, specifically a notification setting a minimum import price for betel nuts. The appellant had filed a Bill of Entry with Customs, and despite initial testing indicating the goods were fit for consumption, the Customs did not release the goods, leading to a series of legal actions.

4. Conflicting reports from different food laboratories added complexity to the case. While some reports indicated the goods were fit for human consumption, others, such as the one from Ghaziabad, stated otherwise. These conflicting reports influenced the judicial decisions and the progression of the case.

5. The final judgment emphasized the importance of considering all evidence, including the reports from various laboratories, to determine the fitness of the goods for human consumption at the time of importation. The court highlighted that the case was not conclusively decided in previous orders and remanded the case for further consideration, keeping all points raised in the writ petition open for review.