9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner is that, in pursuance of a contract, the foreign seller shipped 478 MT of vanaspati and also sent invoices, supplied certificate of origin and certificate of quality etc. The goods were loaded at the Port of Colombo, Sri Lanka, and to be discharged at the Port of Kandla, Gujarat, India. The said consignment containing 12 containers was discharged at the Port of Kandla on 13th April 2006 and, since the nature of the imported goods being edible, the sample was drawn by the Public Health Officer for testing whether the subject goods are fit for human consumption or not. Two bills of entry bearing Nos. 144405 dated 17th April 2006 and 145065 dated 20th April 2006 were filed seeking clearance of the goods for home consumption. The sample drawn by the Public Health Officer, Kandla was sent for testing to the Food Drugs Laboratory, Baroda, and, by report dated 23rd April 2006, it was opined that the Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (Vanaspati Ghee) conforms to standards as per the provisions of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and the melting point was found to be 39.30 degree centigrade. However, the Chemical Examiner of Custom House Laboratory, Kandla, on being r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has submitted that, as per the catena of decisions of the Apex Court, the circulars issued by the Board are binding on the authorities below and urged that, in the present case, since there are two different reports showing a marginal difference about the melting point, this Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate direction to the authorities to release the goods for reprocessing by imposing suitable conditions. 6. The respondents have filed affidavit in reply wherein, it is contended that this petition filed at the stage of show cause notice is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, reported in [2004] 3 Supreme Court Cases 440, wherein, the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of show cause notice stalling enquiries as proposed, which may retard investigative process to find out the actual facts. It is also contended that, in the present case, exercise of power by the respondents authorities is in accordance with the law as laid down by the Apex Court and as per the provisions of the Customs Act. It is stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected to give exact details of the cases where reprocessing has been permitted by the different authorities at different ports. In pursuance of our directions, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted the details, and for ready reference which reads as under : Sr. No Date / Reference Party Name Name of Port Product 1. Bill of Entry No.18931 and 18932 dated 8.10.03 Ruchi Soya Ind. Ltd Kandla Crude Palm (edible grade) 2. Order dtd 21.5.02 bearing F. No .S 202 Gr.I(P)/65/ 2002A Ruchi Soya Ind. Ltd Kolkata Crude Palm oil (edible grade) 3. Order dtd 20.1.05, 10.2.05, 23.2.05 bearing F. No. MISC / DEPB / 26 / 2005, GR7B Ruchi Health Foods Ltd. Chennai Palm Kernal oil 4. Order dtd. 22.2.06 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in WP No.158 / 06 Teej Impex Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds laid down by the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, should be dealt with in the manner prescribed in Circular No.58/ 2001 Cus, dated 25.10.2001. Thus, it is made clear that it will not be open for the Customs Authorities to permit release of the goods for reprocessing suo motu. 11. The above Circular dated 6.11.2006 shows that the Board has consulted the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and, in their opinion, in proper cases, if the Court is satisfied, reprocessing is permissible. The relevant part of Circular dated 6.11.2006 reads as under: According to Ministry of Health Family Welfare, as per practice, reprocessing has been permitted in following circumstances: (i) A case under relevant provisions of PFA Act has been registered, the food article in question has been forfeited to the Government and the person concerned has been convicted by the appropriate court. (ii)The Court is satisfied that the article of food in question can be made to conform prescribed standards for human consumption after reprocessing. (iii)Having been so satisfied the court has to order for the article of food in question to be returned to the owner (on his executi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject goods seized to the food laboratory of repute for testing for opinion whether, after reprocessing, the goods will be fit for human consumption conforming to the standards of vanaspati ghee prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. This shall be done within one week from the date of receipt of this order. The Laboratory shall submit report within one week on receipt of the sample. (ii)On receipt of the report, if the report is in the affirmative, i.e., the Laboratory finds that, after reprocessing, the goods will be fit for human consumption conforming to the standards of vanaspati ghee prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, then permit the petitioner for reprocessing within one week from the date of receipt of the report. (iii) After reprocessing of the goods, send sample of the reprocessed goods again to the food laboratory of repute for testing whether the reprocessed goods are fit for human consumption conforming to the standards of vanaspati ghee prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Laboratory shall submit report within one week on receipt of the sample. If the Laboratory submits the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
