NCLAT: Corporate Debtor’s Guarantor Liability Unchanged Despite Internal Adjustments Among Creditors  ||  NCLAT: Plea under IBC Section 7 Can't Be Restored After Corporate Debtor Pays Principal & Interest  ||  Delhi HC: Wife Can Be Denied Maintenance If She Fails To Submit Latest Salary Slips  ||  Kerala HC: Income of Parent Who Abandoned Family Shouldn’t Count For EWS Reservation Eligibility  ||  Gujarat HC: Writ Courts Interfering in Arbitral Procedure Orders Defies A&C Act’s Purpose  ||  Delhi HC: Plaintiff Doesn’t Have Vested Right to File Rejoinder under CPC  ||  J&K&L HC: Name Change Is Fundamental Right; Boards Must Consider Legal Documents, Not Reject Request  ||  SC: Administrative Delays by State Agencies Must Not Be Condoned  ||  Sc: When Sale Deed Is Void, Possession Suit Follows 12-Year Limitation under Article 65, Not Art 59  ||  SC: Preliminary Inquiry Report Can’t Stop Court from Directing FIR Registration    

Rasrasna Foods Pvt Ltd vs Mundra - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (24 Feb 2022)

Any condition imposed on the import shall not apply to the import already originated from the port of shipping

MANU/CS/0044/2022

Customs

The Appellant had imported a consignment of Sajji Khar at Mundra Port under warehousing Bill of entry. The FSSAI authority certified that, the Appellant holds FSSAI license and the sample conforms to the standards laid down. On filing of Ex-Bond Bill of entry by the Appellant for clearance of the goods of the warehouse, a show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that as per FSSAI letter, Sajji Khar was a non-specified product and approval under Non-Specified Food Regulations of 2017 was required.

The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act and allowed re-export of the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.5 Lacs in lieu of confiscation, he also imposed a penalty of Rs.2.5 Lacs under Section 112(a) of Customs Act on the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, the Appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Ahmedabad. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in- Appeal, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

The Authorised Officers confirmed the sample to the standards and provisions laid down under Regulation 2.1 of 'Other Foods or Foods Not Specified (Contaminants Toxins and Residues) Regulation, 2011' therefore, on this basis the Appellant's imports cannot be found faulted.

CBIC directive issued on 21st May, 2020 regarding the compliance of FSS (Approval of non-specified food and food ingredients) Regulations, 2017 whereas the Bill of entry for warehousing of goods was filed on 28th December, 2019 and also the import has taken place much before the instruction dated 21st May, 2020. The instruction dated 21stMay, 2020 cannot be applied retrospectively. It is a settled law that, any condition is imposed on the import shall not apply to the import already originated from the port of shipping.

In the present case also, the instruction dated 21st May, 2020 was issued much after not only the import of goods but also after filing of warehousing Bill of entry. It is also undisputed fact that the same product i.e. Sajji Khar has been allowed to be imported without the condition as imposed by the department in the present case on the earlier occasions by various importers. The goods are not liable for confiscation. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.

Tags : GOODS   CONFISCATION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved