Re-imported food goods and misbranding: domestic labelling defects alone did not justify absolute confiscation or penalty.

Re-imported food goods were not to be treated as misbranded solely because they lacked domestic-market particulars such as batch or lot numbers, where they had originally been exported and their proposed handling required expert assessment. The Tribunal held that shelf-life conditions in the import policy had to be read in light of the intended use of the goods, and that destruction of valuable goods on technical objections was not justified without proper examination. Because the question of safe processing or retrieval fell within the competence of food authorities, absolute confiscation and penalty were not sustained at this stage, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after expert opinion and permission were produced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the re-imported milk powder was liable to absolute confiscation and penalty as misbranded or prohibited goods, or whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration after obtaining expert opinion from the food authorities.

Analysis: The goods had been originally exported and were re-imported. The Tribunal noted that the absence of domestic-market particulars such as batch number, lot number, and similar declarations could not automatically render the goods misbranded in the context of re-import for purposes other than domestic sale. It also observed that the shelf-life condition in the import policy had to be viewed in light of the actual proposed use of the goods, and that destruction of valuable goods on technical objections would be wasteful. At the same time, the Tribunal accepted that the question whether the milk powder could be processed or retrieved for safe use lay within the domain of the competent food authorities, and not for the Tribunal to decide on its own.

Conclusion: The absolute confiscation and penalty were not sustained at this stage. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after the appellant placed the relevant expert opinion and permission from the food authorities on record.

Ratio Decidendi: Re-imported food goods are not to be treated as misbranded merely because they do not satisfy domestic labeling particulars, where the goods were originally exported and the issue of their handling requires determination by the competent food authority; such matters may warrant remand for expert consideration rather than outright confiscation.

---