Adulterated imported vanaspati may be confiscated, but penalty can be deleted where facts do not justify penal liability.

Imported vanaspati was liable to confiscation because repeated testing showed a melting point of 42.5 C, above the prescribed 31 C to 41 C range, and goods failing the food standard were treated as adulterated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration framework. Confiscation was therefore upheld. The penalty on the importer was nevertheless set aside because, on the surrounding facts, including the exporter's test report showing a 40 C melting point, penal liability was not justified. Partial relief was granted to the importer, with the confiscation sustained but the penal component deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether imported vanaspati was liable to confiscation on the ground that its melting point was beyond the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration law and therefore it was adulterated; (ii) whether the penalty imposed on the importer was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether imported vanaspati was liable to confiscation on the ground that its melting point was beyond the standard prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration law and therefore it was adulterated.

Analysis: The sample was tested twice and both reports recorded the melting point at 42.5 C, while the prescribed range for vanaspati was 31 C to 41 C. Section 2(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 treats an article as adulterated where its quality or purity falls below the prescribed standard. Since adulterated food items are prohibited for import and the goods did not conform to the prescribed standard, confiscation was justified.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the goods was upheld and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed on the importer was sustainable.

Analysis: The goods were imported from Sri Lanka and the exporter's test report indicated a melting point of 40 C. In the facts and circumstances, the importer was not treated as liable for penal consequence, even though the confiscation was maintained.

Conclusion: The penalty was set aside and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order of confiscation was sustained, but the penal component was deleted, resulting in only partial relief to the importer.

Ratio Decidendi: Imported food goods that fail the prescribed adulteration standard are liable to confiscation, but penalty may be deleted where the surrounding facts do not justify penal liability.

---