9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner Concern is also assessed to Income Tax, besides local sales tax. 2.2. In the course of their business, they placed orders with one M/s.Prudence Enterprises, Hong Kong, China for supply of Food Additives, i.e. Monosodium Glutamate during March 2011. The said material was sourced from a manufacturer viz. Neimenggu Fufgeng Biotechnologies Company Limited of China. The supplier, after negotiations, confirmed supply of 506 MTS of the said goods at US$ 1300 PMT. The goods were to be shipped in April 2011 from the Port of Xingang, China to Tuticorin Seaport. In terms of the sale confirmation, the goods were to be shipped in three lots. Payment was to be made on D/P basis. The sales confirmations are Annexure-B collectively. 2.3. Pursuant to the sales confirmation, the supplier raised three Invoices in No.VML-11082-11 dated 04.04.2011 for 138 Mts VMIN 11012 dated 18.04.2011, for 184 Mts and VMIN 11034 dated 24.05.2011, for 184 Mts on the petitioner. Along with the said Invoices, the supplier dispatched the Packing List, Certificate of Origin, Certificate of Analysis and Bills of Lading. These import documents collectively are Annexure-C series. 2.4. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceipt of the same from the Investigation Agency, which is Annexure-J. However, the Investigation Agency, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Tuticorin under communication dated 04.10.2011 informed that the goods imported is a Food Additive of Chinese origin and the packings did not have the name and address of the manufacturer and Importer, which violated Rule 32(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short 'Rules) and therefore, prohibited for imports under Section 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'Act'). Therefore, the consignment covered under the aforesaid Bills of Entry were seized under Mahazar dated 01.08.2011 and 02.08.2011 and the Report and documents were returned to the Office of the respondent for taking further action. The communication/Report of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, dated 04.10.2011 is Annexure-K. Subsequent to the said communication, the petitioner entity has sent three communications by Fax and Registered Post dated 13.10.2011, 20.10.2011 and 11.11.2011 to the respondent seeking clearance and release of the goods. It was also informed that the imports were in bulk pack and labelling requirements wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, net weight, Purity, Made in China, etc., the name and address of the Manufacturer as well as the Importer's name and address were absent, which is mandatory and it should be figured in the bags as per Rule 32(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Since the impugned consignments in the present writ petition have been imported in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules read with the provisions of the Customs Act,1962, the said imported goods were seized under Section 110(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the DRI, Tuticorin. (iii) Since the goods in question seized by DRI, Tuticorin were under investigation for the violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules read with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the contention of the petitioner that the seizure is without authority of law is not sustainable. (iv) The imported goods are subjected to clearance only if it confirms to the Act read with Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006. Samples were drawn and forwarded to the Referral Food Laboratory, CFTRI, Mysore. The Director, CFTRI, Mysore gave his opinion vide their Certificates No.502P/FSSA/2011; 503P/FSSA/2011 & 504P/FSSA/2011, all d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rules, 2011 is required for the purpose of fixing the responsibility on the importer when the import goods are found to cause injury to the public in the course of consumption of the same, since it is a food additive. (vii) The contentions of the petitioner are not acceptable on the following grounds : (a) The imported good viz. 'Monosodium Glutamate' is used as a flavouring agent and in terms of Section 2(v) of the Act, the subject goods are covered under the definition of 'Food' and in terms of Rule 32(c) of the Rules, the goods are prohibited for import under Section 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. (b) Rule 64(B) of the Rules, stipulate the conditions for use of 'Monosodium Glutamate' in food, which may be added to food as per the conditions in Appendix-C, subject to Goods Manufacturing Practice (GMP) level and under proper label declaration as provided in Rule 42(S). As per Rule 64(B), Monosodium Glutamate shall not be added to any food for use by an infant below 12 months and in the list of foods (51 nos.), detailed in Rule 64(B). Rule 32(k) of the Rules, reads thus : "instructions for use - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been in a position to show that the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, dated 27.10.2011, had already been challenged, by way of an appeal. It is found that the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, 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. 16. 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 directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to re-pack and re-label the goods in question, in a customs bonded area, subject to mutual convenience. 17. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same are pending for assessment and clearance. 9. It is to be stated, that, vide communication dated 30.09.2011, the Office of the respondent informed the petitioner that the Bills of Entry in respect of the subject goods have been taken up for investigation by the Office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Tuticorin, who are yet to return the same and that the Bills of Entry will be assessed after receipt of the same from the Investigation Agency. However, the said Investigating Agency, namely, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Tuticorin, under communication dated 04.10.2011, informed that the goods imported are Food Additive of Chinese origin and the packings did not have the name and address of manufacturer and Importer, which violated Rule 32(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and, therefore, prohibited for imports under Section 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Therefore, the consignment covered under the aforesaid Bills of Entry were seized under Mahazars dated 01.08.2011 and 02.08.2011 and the Report and documents were returned to the Office of the respondent for taking further action. Subsequent to the communicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
