9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Delhi having IEC Code Number & PAN Number, imported 19,595 kgs (43200 lbs) California Inshell Almonds vide Invoice dated 11/9/14 and Bill of Lading dated 10/8/14 having assessable value of Rs. 81,67,686.85 from M/s Lina Global Incorporate, New York, USA. The bill of entry on the goods reaching ICD, was filed on 24/9/14. The Customs requested the appellant to obtain No Objection Certificate from M/s Food Safety & Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) in respect of the imported Almonds. The sample was drawn by the authorized officer for lab analysis on 10.10.2014 and the report dated 27.10.2014 was issued addressed to the Assistant Commissioner. It was stated that the tested sample does not conform to 2.3.47(5) for FSSR, 2011 for dry fruits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove facts, it was stated by the appellant before the ld.Commissioner that there was no malafide intention on their part. It was also contended that the mould and fungal growth as reported by FSSAI, is on the shell of almonds and inside may not be infested. It was also submitted that fungal growth could be due to moisture content during the long transport period which was almost 45 days. 3. The ld. Commissioner vide OIO dated 31/3/15 observing that the imported goods, has failed to clear the food safety standards, accordingly, held that the impugned goods are offending in nature as per Food Safety & Standard Regulations, 2011 and accordingly, rejected the same for clearance for home consumption. Further, the ld.Commissioner held that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Bio-Chemical Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs, Mumbai : 2005 (186) ELT 564 (Tri.-Mumbai) where the Division Bench of this Tribunal, held that in the case of import of drugs not meeting pharmacopoeia test grades, hence not permitted to be imported under Rule 41 of Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and shipping was allowed on payment of fine and there have been no malafide on the part of the importer although the confiscation was upheld and imposition of penalty was set aside and further, redemption fine was reduced to token 1% of sale value. The ld. Counsel also relies on another decision of this Tribunal in the case of Centre Marketing Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Calcutta : 2004 (178) ELT 601 (Tri.-Kolkata) wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
