Central Food Laboratory certification overrides contrary customs reports on imported edible goods, defeating confiscation and penalty.

The statutory scheme under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act treats the Central Food Laboratory as the final authority in disputed food-sample cases. Where the Port Health Officer certifies imported edible goods as fit for human consumption and the Central Food Laboratory confirms conformity with the prescribed standard, contrary reports from the Customs Chemical Examiner and CRCL cannot override that statutory opinion. On that footing, the allegation of misdeclaration fails, and the imported RBD Palmolein is not liable to confiscation or penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported RBD Palmolein was liable to confiscation and penalty when the Port Health Officer and Central Food Laboratory certified conformity with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act standards, notwithstanding contrary reports from the Customs Chemical Examiner and CRCL.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act places the Central Food Laboratory as the final authority in disputed cases concerning food samples. The Board circulars governing import clearance of edible goods also contemplated reference to the public health authorities for testing and clearance. Here, the Port Health Officer certified the goods as fit for human consumption and the Central Food Laboratory gave a categorical opinion that the sample conformed to the prescribed standard for palmolein. In that situation, the contrary report of the Customs laboratory and CRCL could not displace the statutory final opinion. Once the competent food authorities had certified conformity, the allegation of misdeclaration could not stand, the goods were not liable to confiscation, and the penalty lacked foundation.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalties were not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---