9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the re-imported, they filed Bill of Entry to take the goods for home consumption, by claiming the benefit of Notification No.45/2017. The test report for 200 cartons by FSSAI disclosed that it is not conforming to the safety standards prescribed under the Food Safety Standards (Food Product Standards Food Additives) Regulation, 2011. The appellant consequently requested to allow them to re-export the goods after minor processing viz. dry heating in the Customs premises to an overseas buyer. The Adjudicating Officer rejected the same observing that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy and therefore goods are liable for confiscation and consequently confiscated the said goods and directed its destruction and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.COC-CUSTM-000-APP-01/2023-24 dated 05.04.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had initially exported 400 cartons of Organic Cashew Kernel SWP which was rejected by the overseas buyer due to mismatch of labels, which was returned to the Cochin Port. The appellant filed Bill of Entry No.8524578 dated 03.05.2022 claiming benefit of exemption Notification No.45/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 declaring the same as Organic Cashew Kernel SWP which was originally exported by shipping bill No.2665360 dated 25.06.2021 and No.4344176 dated 30.09.2021. Since the imported goods required mandatory clearance under Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 and Livestock Importa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the appellant filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a writ petition before Kerala High Court bearing W.P.(C) No.14690 of 2023 and by order dated 24.05.2023, the learned Single Judge of the Hon ble High Court not entertained the Writ petition. Aggrieved by that order, appellant filed Writ Appeal WA No.1035 of 2023 before the Division Bench of the Hon ble High Court which was also disposed of vide order dated 07.07.2023 dismissing the appeal without considering it on merit. Later they filed appeal before this Tribunal on 02.11.2023. Also, they have approached the Hon ble High Court for provisional release of the goods. The Hon ble High Court di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etable matter, moisture, free fatty acids (Oleic acid), peroxide value etc. are well within the values prescribed under Item 2.3.47.7 of Chapter 2.3 of the FSSAI Compendium. Further he has said that the test also revealed that the goods are free foreign smell, insect damage, acid insoluble ash (sand, soil, or foreign materials) or aflatoxins (family of poisonous carcinogenic toxins produced by fungi). He further submitted that biological testing conducted by the laboratory revealed that microorganisms such as E coli O157 (food and waterborne pathogen), Salmonella (bacteria causing diarrheal illnesses), Listerla Monocytogenes (capable of causing listeria), Vibrio cholerae (capable of causing cholera) are absent, rendering the goods safe for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant can be allowed to reexport 4536 kgs. of Organic Cashew Kernel SWP imported against Bill of Entry No.8524578 dated 03.05.2022. 9. The undisputed facts are that the appellant had initially exported two lots of 200 cartons each of Organic Cashew Kernel SWP against Shipping Bill No.2665360 dated 25.06.2021 through Tuticorin Port and Shipping Bill No.4344176 dated 30.09.20221 through Cochin Port. The foreign buyer at the destination port, due to mismatching of labels on few cartons, rejected ad returned the consignment to the appellant which arrived at the Cochin Port. On examination of the goods, the Shed Officer confirmed the identity of the re-imported goods as those exported and were to be cleared subject to the approval of Authoris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the appellant had contravened the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy and therefore goods are liable for confiscation and consequently confiscated the said goods and directed its destruction and imposed penalty. 12. We do not find substance in the finding of authorities below which rests on the reasoning that the appellant initially claimed the benefit of Notification No.45/2017, later when it was found that out of 400 cartons, 200 cartons do not conform the FSSAI standards and hence cannot be cleared for home consumption, requested amendment to Bill of Entry seeking benefit of Notification No.158/95. Cus dated 14.11.1995 for re-export of the goods after making necessary re-processing like dry heating. The contention of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
