TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANALYSIS REPORT, produced by the importer, showed, inter alia , the following results : BAUDOUIN TEST : 5 R IN 1" CELL (MINIMUM) SLIP MELTING POINT (Deg.C) : 40 A sample of the goods was drawn and sent to the Port Health Organization (PHO) for their clearance. The Port Health Officer reported that the sample was found to be adulterated since the melting point determined by capillary slip method was 28.5 C, which was less than the minimum prescribed standard for Vanaspati . Not satisfied with the PHO s test report, the importer asked for re-test by the Central Food Laboratory (CFL), Mysore. CFL certified that the sample of Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil did not conform to the standards laid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of this Bench in Chamundi Textiles Silk Mills Ltd. v Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, 2005 (180) E.L.T. 135 (Tri.-Chennai) in support of his contention that, as the description of the goods was given in the Bill of Entry on the basis of the description given in the supplier s invoice, it could not be said that the appellants had misdeclared the goods and, therefore, there could be no confiscation or penalty. But the facts of the present case are distinguishable. Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, Vanaspati i.e., any refined edible vegetable oil or oils, subjected to a process of hydrogenation in any form, shall conform to certain specified standards. One of these specifications is that the melting point as determined b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully met this plea by relying on Afzal Agency v. CESTAT, 2006 (205) E.L.T. 47 (Kar.), wherein it was held that redemption fine was envisaged only to get over the order of confiscation irrespective of whether the goods were cleared for home consumption or re-exported. It cannot be denied that the appellants had, by misdeclaring the goods as Vanaspati, rendered the same liable for confiscation, thereby attracting penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 4. The question now is whether the quanta of fine and penalty imposed by the original authority are unreasonably high as claimed by ld. counsel. The original authority appears to have imposed a fine to the extent of about 30% of the value of the goods. In the facts and circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
