Re-imported goods unfit for human use may be cleared as cattle feed if evidence and safeguards prevent diversion.

Re-imported groundnuts found unfit for human consumption may still be considered for release as cattle feed where material supports that alternate use and effective safeguards prevent diversion to human consumption. The text notes that further testing, mutilation, importer undertakings, buyer verification and an end-use certificate may be required before clearance. It also states that, on the facts described, no justification existed for the personal penalty imposed on the importer, so the penalty was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration of release subject to safeguards.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether re-imported groundnuts found unfit for human consumption could be released for use as cattle feed subject to safeguards, and (ii) whether the personal penalty imposed on the importer was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether re-imported groundnuts found unfit for human consumption could be released for use as cattle feed subject to safeguards.

Analysis: The goods were found not fit for human consumption under the preventive food safety test, but there was material indicating that they could still be used as cattle feed. The adjudicating authority's view that failed edible goods must necessarily be re-exported or destroyed was not accepted as an absolute bar in the facts of the case. The matter required further verification to ensure that the goods were fit even for animal consumption and that there was no risk of their being diverted for human consumption. Appropriate safeguards such as further testing, mutilation, undertaking by the importer, verification of the buyer, and an end-use certificate were considered permissible.

Conclusion: The goods could be considered for release as cattle feed subject to adequate safeguards and further certification by the proper officer.

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

Analysis: In the circumstances of the case, where the goods had deteriorated during the period between export and re-import and the importer sought clearance for an alternate permitted use, no justification was found for penal action of the kind imposed by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for reconsideration of release of the goods as cattle feed on suitable safeguards, while the penalty was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods found unfit for human consumption may still be released for a non-human use if that use is supported by evidence and protected by effective safeguards against diversion.

---