TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purportedly unfit for human consumption. 2. On commencement of hearing of the appeal, it had been contended on behalf of the appellant that the conflicting test results, with some arising from unauthorized samples tested without regulatory authorization, could cloud appreciation of arguments and that the decision of the Commissioner of Customs had failed to elaborate upon, or furnish, the results relied upon for penalizing the importer. Acknowledging the submission, this Tribunal had, on 7 th February 2022, directed drawal of fresh samples and testing thereof to preclude taint being attached to any of the reports filed by either side. 3. Even though the seizure was prompted by the reasonable belief of the impugned goods having been misclassified for evading restrictions imposed in the Foreign Trade Policy on import of areca nuts , that is not the controversy before us. It is on record that, in exercise of powers under section 28-I of Customs Act, 1962, the Authority for Advance Rulings (Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax) Authority, on application by the importer, had, by order dated 7 th August 2015, determined the goods to be classifiable under chapter 21 of First ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contended on behalf of the appellant that the supari imported by them corresponds to tariff item 2106 90 30 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and freely importable on discharge of the duty so determined. It was further contended that coverage under the chapter pertaining to miscellaneous edible preparations also mandated certification by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), the duly constituted agency under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, for domestically produced and externally sourced edibles, as a pre-requisite under that statute. Among the records furnished by the appellant are reports dated 21st October 2021 of M/s Qualichem Laboratories as having passed muster for the purposes of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It was submitted that reference was also made on 2nd November 2021, apparently at the prompting of investigators, by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to M/s Testtex who, vide communication dated 11th November 2021, intimated the goods to be unfit for human consumption which was speculated upon by Learned Counsel as the proximate cause for denial of the permission after the Hon ble High Court of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Commissioner of Central Excise [1997 (93) ELT 646 (SC)] relied upon therein by Revenue, the dispute was about classification in which the expertise of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory is sufficiently acknowledged to be for the Hon ble Supreme Court, in re Reliance Cellulose Products Limited, to commend the superiority of its reports except where palpably demonstrated as wrong. The present dispute has digressed from the reasonable belief of mis-classification and is all about human consumption which is entirely external to assessment and in the remit of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) empowered under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Neither should assessing authorities, or their technical support, arrogate expertise of a statutory domain that is not extended to them. Doubtlessly, this Tribunal, too, is without authority of monitorial oversight over the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and, hence, our cautionary advice to the Commissioner of Customs on venturing into unchartered territory that his office is illdesigned to appropriate either by numerosity of test reports or from the mantle of being a government laboratory. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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. 10. Certification of edibles as unfit for human consumption is, under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, in the exclusive domain of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) which clothes such certification with responsibility attendant upon accountability and, when issued of its own accord in accordance with regulatory procedure governing such standards, may be taken into consideration in clearance for home consumption under section 47 of Customs Act, 1962. 11. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
