TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent No. 3 approached the Director, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for verification/testing of the impugned goods inter alia on the ground that the Petitioner had given vague description suggesting that some processes were conducted on the impugned goods which could not be ascertained with the naked eye and, therefore, the nature of the mix created in the impugned goods would require verification from the FSSAI. Pursuant thereto, the FSSAI issued its test report dated 7th December 2023 which was provided to respondent No. 3 inter alia, recording that the goods were Split Areca Nut with mild smell of Menthol and confirmed to FSSAI standards (Exhibit H ). Such opinion, as rendered by the FSSAI, which is part of the report, reads thus: Opinion : On the basis of tested parameters, the Sample of Arec Nut/Betel Nut conforms to the standard laid down under Regulation No 2.3.55 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011. 5. It is the petitioner s case that despite a favourable test report rendered by the FSSAI, for almost a period of five months from the date of the imports, the respondents did not grant clearance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ready to use. Sealed remnant returned (emphasis added) 7. On the basis of the said report, the deponent of the affidavit Mr. Akshay Patil, Group 1, JNCH, has stated in paragraph 8 of the affidavit that, since the goods are not ready to use and there is presence of kernel husk fragments, the goods do not conform to the description of the goods as per the advance ruling issued in the matter. Primarily, on such contention the respondents contend that the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner should not to be granted. 8. On the above conspectus, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. With their assistance, we have also perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that, prior to the import of the goods in question, the Petitioner had made an application to CAAR in regard to the classification of the impugned goods. Such ruling was rendered on 22nd February 2023 that the goods be classified under CTH 21069030. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner had made the imports in question. It is also clear that the Bill of Entry was finally assessed approving classification as opined by the CAAR. 10. It appears that the respondent No. 3 had taken steps to examine the goods from the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eport, on behalf of the Respondents, in the reply affidavit of Mr. Akshay Patil, it is contended that, since the goods are not ready to use and as there is presence of kernel husk fragments, the goods have impurities, when the report per-se does not talk about any impurity. Such attribution of impurity is contained in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in reply which reads thus: 8. The respondents say that since the goods are not ready to use and there is presence of impurities the kernel husk fragments and the goods are cut pieces, the goods do not conform to the description of the goods as per the advance ruling issued in the matter. 12. This apart, the reply affidavit has further sought to raise an issue of classification as seen from paragraph 10 thereof. 13. We may observe, that from the materials on record of the department, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
