Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2024 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 704 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTSeeking release of the goods imported - betelnuts/supari described as Menthol Scented Sweet Supari (“goods”) - nature of the mix created - FSSAI issued test report Split Areca Nut with mild smell of Menthol and confirmed to FSSAI standards (Exhibit ‘H’) - DYCC - presence of kernel husk fragments - classification of confirmed to be falling under CTH 21069030 - HELD THAT:- From the materials on record, there was no reason for the Respondents to discard the opinion as rendered by the FSSAI so as to take a stance not to clear the goods for home consumption. In our opinion, there was also no reason for the Respondents to disown or read into the report of the DYCC as to what has actually not been provided, namely, that there are impurities in the goods much less harmful. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we examined the issue as to what is the purport of the DYCC’s report when it uses the words “that the samples u/r contain pieces of kernel husk fragments”. It appears from the material furnished before us by the learned counsel for the parties, and which ought not to be in dispute that the “kernel husk” is the hard (brown) portion of a coconut, the particles of which may get mixed when the kernel (white edible portion inside the coconut) is grated. If the grating in a given case is little deep, it is likely that the actual kernel is mixed with the particles of the hard portion (skull of the coconut) which holds the kernel. It is also likely that some strings of the outer husk of the kernel (literally “the dry fiber part of the coconut”) can also be described to be kernel husk. Thus, we do not find that there is any objectionable or any fatal impurity which would render the goods to be labelled as prohibitory. In our opinion, the respondents ought not to have taken such a decision that the goods should not be granted a clearance and/or a situation is brought about that they do not conform, to the opinion as rendered by the CAAR. In our view, in the facts of the present case, accepting such stand, as taken on behalf of the respondents would certainly render nugatory, the ruling of the CAAR, as also the report of the FSSAI and the DYCC. Such stand of the department thus, cannot be sustained. The Petition is allowed.
|