2022 (3) TMI 1326 - AT - Customs

Provisional release of goods - API supari - Correctness of outcome, based on a selected report of sample testing - edible fruit and nuts - peel of citrus fruit or melons covering areca nuts - whether these goods are unfit for human consumption? - conflicting test results - Correct classification of goods - release of seized goods - applicability of section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - There is no allegation about the competence of, or the quality of the test undertaken by, the laboratory to which the samples drawn on the direction of this Tribunal had been forwarded. The domain expertise of Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) in relation to classification of goods does not extend to the prescriptive requirements of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. In these circumstances, an unending series of tests on requests and counter-requests cannot be approved; but it was done, and with reluctance, solely owing to the procedural lacunae that strained the credibility of the conflicting reports produced. There is a test report that is not sought for discarding except by assertion of the sanctity of Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) which has no domain expertise over food safety standards. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has also not discredited this result. The denial of provisional release must be reviewed in the light of this report under section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 forthwith and, in any case, not later than ten days from the date of receipt of this order, and, as directed by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay, strictly within the framework of the law. Consequence of denial of access to impugned goods is a commercial detriment that burdens the appellant. The impugned goods are not a produce of India with nowhere else to go but have been imported from a place outside India with commercial intent. The regulatory standards of India are not mandated for implementation across the globe. Each country adopts its own and the country of origin of the impugned goods must, if necessary, be the final resting place of such as are unfit to be cleared here for home consumption - Even if customs authorities felt obliged with, or without, justification or authority, to protect domestic consumers of arecanut/supari, the option of return to sender should have been permitted in circumstances of denial of recourse to section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 on grounds other than that which legitimized seizure. Therefore, it is only equitable that the prayer for issue of detention certificate for enabling waiver of demurrage is allowed. The respondent-Commissioner is directed to apply the law in section 110A of Customs Act, 1962, arising from seizure under section 110 of Customs Act, 1962, in the light of the report of the tests undertaken on the samples drawn - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure and classification of imported goods.
2. Conflicting test results and their impact on the case.
3. Authority and jurisdiction of customs versus Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
4. Provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Commercial detriment and the option of re-export.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Seizure and Classification of Imported Goods:
The appeal by M/s Excellent Betelnut Products Private Limited questioned the correctness of the sample testing report used for the seizure of their imported goods, classified as 'API supari'. The goods were initially assessed under Chapter 21 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, but were seized under the belief they should be classified under Chapter 8, which covers 'areca nuts'. This classification dispute, usually resolved through provisional release with adequate security, was complicated by claims that the goods were unfit for human consumption.

2. Conflicting Test Results and Their Impact on the Case:
The appellant argued that conflicting test results, including unauthorized samples, clouded the case. The Tribunal acknowledged this and directed fresh sample testing to avoid bias. The initial test by M/s Qualichem Laboratories deemed the goods compliant with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, while subsequent tests by CRCL and M/s Testtex reported them unfit for human consumption. The Tribunal found the customs authorities' reliance on CRCL's report unconvincing, stressing the need for credible and transparent testing.

3. Authority and Jurisdiction of Customs vs. FSSAI:
The Tribunal emphasized that the issue of human consumption falls under the jurisdiction of FSSAI, not customs authorities. The expertise of CRCL is limited to classification and does not extend to food safety standards. The Tribunal advised the Commissioner of Customs to avoid overstepping into areas governed by FSSAI, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory domains.

4. Provisional Release of Seized Goods Under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant's challenge to the seizure led to a High Court order treating their writ petition as an application under Section 110A. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner of Customs for not providing legal grounds for denying provisional release, despite the High Court's directive. The Tribunal ordered a review of the denial based on the fresh test report, which aligned with the original compliant report, and directed the Commissioner to decide within the legal framework.

5. Commercial Detriment and the Option of Re-export:
The Tribunal acknowledged the commercial detriment caused by the denial of access to the goods. It highlighted that the goods, imported with commercial intent, could be re-exported if unfit for domestic consumption. The Tribunal directed the issuance of a 'detention certificate' to waive demurrage, allowing re-export to minimize commercial losses.

Conclusion:
The impugned order was set aside, and the Commissioner was directed to apply Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, considering the fresh test report and legal framework. The Tribunal emphasized the need for adherence to statutory jurisdictions and provided for the commercial interests of the appellant by allowing re-export.

(Pronounced in Open Court on 29/03/2022)