TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of import and trading in cereals, especially, white oats, from some foreign countries, including Australia and Argentina. The petitioner has been carrying on the said business for a period of nearly 6 years. The petitioner has been allotted the Importer Exporter Code No.0404008887, by the office of the Zonal JDGFT, Chennai. The petitioner firm has also been assessed to Income tax and other local taxes. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had imported a consignment of Oats (Rolled and Flaked), in 2080 bags of 20 kilograms each. The goods had been supplied by M/s. Arroyos, Buenos Aires, Argentina. The goods had arrived at Chennai, in the month of June, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. The said Tribunal had taken up the appeal for disposal and had passed an order, dated 27.10.2011, in final order No.1166/2011. 6. The operative portion of the said order is as follows: "I find that the appellants have imported the consignment of Oats in 20 kgs packs and the same bears the necessary details regarding the supplier's name, brand, address and the date of expiry as April, 2012, before the consignment has been shipped from Argentina. The applicants are also undertaking to provide any other details required to comply with the local laws at the time of re-packing and re-labeling the impugned goods in the customs bonded area before customs clearance. They are a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are to be used as "Best Before" April, 2012. The goods had arrived in bulk packs of 20 kilograms each and they had the suppliers name, brand and address, in Spanish. Further, if the goods are in bulk packs and are further re-processed and put into smaller retails packs, labeling requirements are not mandatory. Therefore, the contentions of the respondents that the goods have been misbranded is not sustainable, in view of the proviso to Rule 32(7) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 9. It had been further stated that the petitioner had undertaken to provide all the necessary details to comply with the local laws, at the time of re-packing and re-labeling of the goods in question, in the Customs Bonded Area and that sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; 12. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 13. The learned Senior central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, had submitted, on instructions, that an appeal is being preferred against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, dated 27.10.2011, and therefore, the releasing of the goods in question would not arise, at this stage. He had further submitted that the goods in question may not be fit for human consumption and therefore, the releasing of the such goods would result in serious health hazards. 14. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the goods in question, imported by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... South Zonal Bench, Chennai, dated 27.10.2011, makes it clear that the goods in question shall be released only on the petitioner undertaking to provide all the necessary details required to comply with the local laws, at the time of the re-packing and the re-labeling of the said goods, in the customs bonded area, before the necessary customs clearance is given. 17. It had also been stated that the goods in question would be subjected to the necessary tests, by the Port Health Authorities, before the customs clearance is sought for by the petitioner. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, had passed the order, by setting aside the impugned order, which had been challenged before it, and by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|