Appeal success: Redemption fine set aside, penalty reduced for goods not meeting FSSAI standards.

The appeal in this case, concerning the confiscation of goods for not meeting FSSAI standards, resulted in the redemption fine being set aside and the penalty reduced to Rs. 25,000. The judge considered the appellant's intention to re-export the goods and found the redemption fine unjustified. Relying on relevant High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the judge deemed the penalty excessive due to the goods not being prohibited and the lack of intent to violate laws. Ultimately, the decision allowed the appeal in part, eliminating the redemption fine, maintaining the re-export directive, and reducing the penalty.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods for not conforming to FSSAI standards
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty
3. Challenge to redemption fine and penalty
4. Appellant's willingness to re-export the goods

The judgment pertains to an appeal filed regarding the confiscation of goods due to non-conformance with the Food Safety and Standards Act of India [FSSAI] standards. The original authority had ordered the confiscation of the goods, along with a redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 5 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 2 lakhs. The appellant contested the redemption fine and penalty, expressing willingness to re-export the goods.

The appellant argued that since they are willing to re-export the goods, the redemption fine imposed lacked a basis. The appellant cited a decision by the jurisdictional High Court, supported by the Supreme Court, to strengthen their case. They also contended that the penalty was excessive, as there was no intent to violate any laws. On the other hand, the Revenue's Authorized Representative reiterated that the goods were imported in violation of FSSAI regulations, justifying the confiscation. The Representative argued that the redemption fine and penalty were appropriate, citing a relevant case law.

After hearing both sides, the judge noted the appellant's willingness to re-export the goods and found the redemption fine unjustifiable. Relying on the High Court and Supreme Court decisions cited by the appellant, the judge set aside the redemption fine. Regarding the penalty, considering the circumstances of the case where the goods were to be re-exported and were not prohibited, the judge deemed the penalty excessive and reduced it to Rs. 25,000. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to eliminate the redemption fine, uphold the re-export direction, and reduce the penalty.

In conclusion, the judgment partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the redemption fine, upholding the re-export directive, and reducing the penalty to Rs. 25,000. The decision was made based on the appellant's willingness to comply with re-exportation and the disproportionate nature of the original penalty imposed.

---