Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (9) TMI 1165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rd that betel nuts are absolutely prohibited or banned for importation into the country. Betel-nut unfit for human consumption – test carried out by Food Analyst, Guwahati – Held that: - provisions of Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006 are implemented by the State Govt. and not by the authorities under the Customs Act, 1962. Such objection can be raised only when the goods are being imported through regular Custom stations. The request of the Appellant for provisional release of seized betel nuts rejected by the Adjudicating authority was improper and legally not correct. It is ordered that seized betel nuts should be provisionally released to the Appellant after executing a bond for the full value of the goods with one solvent surety .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vide Order dated 01.08.2016 High Court, inter alia, directed Commissioner of Customs(Prev.), Shillong to pass an appealable order regarding provisional release of the Appellant s request. Appellant again approached Hon ble High Court of Meghalaya in WP (C) No. 198 of 2016 and Hon ble Court by an Order dated 09.08.216, after considering Order-in-Original dated 08.08.2016, made following observations:- So far the requirement of expeditious proceeding by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is concerned, there is no reason to doubt that upon the petitioner making a proper request for expeditious proceeding while pointing out the reasons, the Tribunal would not consider the same in accordance with law. It is therefo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gh Court department has challenged that Appellant is not the rightful owner of the goods. That no other claimant for the seized goods has come forward so far, when the drivers of the trucks have clearly stated that the seized goods belonged to the Appellant. Ld.Advocate appearing for the Appellant further submitted that as per case law of Sonali Traders vs.Commissioner of Customs, Allahabad [2013 (298) ELT 302 (Tri.-Del.) betel nuts are not notified items under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and there was no reasonable belief that seized betel nuts were of foreign origin. That none of the persons whose statements are recorded has said that the goods were of foreign origin. 4.1 On the issue of provisional release of the goods ld.Adv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... st was done by Food Analyst in the case of Shri Kajal Roy, Silchar vs. Commissioner of Customs(Prev.), Shillong, relied upon by the Appellant. 6. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 7. The only point required to be decided in these proceedings is whether request of provisional release made by the Appellant under Application dated 07.04.2016 has been correctly rejected or not by the Adjudicating authority under Order-in-Original dated 08.08.2016. It is observed from the case records that the drivers of the trucks, in which betel nuts were being carried produced invoices issued by M/s.Radha Raman Traders, Silchar where Appellant is the proprietor, along with Form M covering documents issued by Marketing Inspector, Kachar Di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . This will prevent congestion at ports warehouses. Adequate B.G/security may be taken to safeguard revenue (including possible fine penalty). In case where it is decided to detain the consignment action should be taken to shift the same to a Customs Warehouse under section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962 [Board Circular No.84/95- Cus., dated 25.7.95 may be referred to]. 9. So far as test done by Food Analyst, Guwahati; regarding unsuitability of seized goods for human consumption; is concerned, it is observed that provisions of Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 are implemented by the State Govt. and not by the authorities under the Customs Act, 1962. Such objection can be raised only when the goods are being imported through regular C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates