Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1326 - AT - CustomsProvisional release of goods - API supari - Correctness of outcome, based on a selected report of sample testing - edible fruit and nuts - peel of citrus fruit or melons covering areca nuts - whether these goods are unfit for human consumption? - conflicting test results - Correct classification of goods - release of seized goods - applicability of section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- There is no allegation about the competence of, or the quality of the test undertaken by, the laboratory to which the samples drawn on the direction of this Tribunal had been forwarded. The domain expertise of Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) in relation to classification of goods does not extend to the prescriptive requirements of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. In these circumstances, an unending series of tests on requests and counter-requests cannot be approved; but it was done, and with reluctance, solely owing to the procedural lacunae that strained the credibility of the conflicting reports produced. There is a test report that is not sought for discarding except by assertion of the sanctity of Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) which has no domain expertise over food safety standards. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has also not discredited this result. The denial of provisional release must be reviewed in the light of this report under section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 forthwith and, in any case, not later than ten days from the date of receipt of this order, and, as directed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, strictly within the framework of the law. Consequence of denial of access to impugned goods is a commercial detriment that burdens the appellant. The impugned goods are not a produce of India with nowhere else to go but have been imported from a place outside India with commercial intent. The regulatory standards of India are not mandated for implementation across the globe. Each country adopts its own and the country of origin of the impugned goods must, if necessary, be the final resting place of such as are unfit to be cleared here for home consumption - Even if customs authorities felt obliged with, or without, justification or authority, to protect domestic consumers of arecanut/supari, the option of return to sender should have been permitted in circumstances of denial of recourse to section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 on grounds other than that which legitimized seizure. Therefore, it is only equitable that the prayer for issue of ‘detention certificate’ for enabling waiver of demurrage is allowed. The respondent-Commissioner is directed to apply the law in section 110A of Customs Act, 1962, arising from seizure under section 110 of Customs Act, 1962, in the light of the report of the tests undertaken on the samples drawn - Appeal allowed.
|