Customs confiscation and penalty on unfit food imports reduced where the goods were not prohibited under law.

Import of wet dates found unfit under food safety parameters, but not prohibited under the Customs Act, did not justify sustaining higher redemption fine and penalty. The consignment was rejected and confiscated because additives or preservatives rendered it unsuitable under food safety law, yet the customs confiscation provision for prohibited goods was not attracted on these facts. As the import itself was not banned, the higher fiscal consequences were considered unduly harsh and were reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on import of wet dates found unsuitable under the food safety parameters but not prohibited under the Customs Act, the redemption fine and penalty required to be sustained or reduced.

Analysis: The goods were tested and found not to meet the required parameters under the food safety law, leading to rejection and confiscation with an option of redemption and penalty. The Customs Act provision dealing with confiscation of prohibited goods was not attracted on the facts, and the import of wet dates itself was not prohibited. The impropriety arose from the additives or preservatives used, which rendered the consignment unfit under the food safety framework. In these circumstances, sustaining the higher amounts of redemption fine and penalty was considered unduly harsh.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

---