Mandatory labelling breaches in imported food goods can justify confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under food safety law.

Imported food items that do not comply with mandatory labelling and food safety requirements may be treated as prohibited or misbranded goods, exposing them to confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty. The note records that non-compliance with statutory labelling norms was accepted even though samples were not drawn for analysis, and that the violation of food safety law was sufficient to sustain the adjudication. It further notes that, in view of the limited quantum involved and the established breach, interference was not warranted and the appellate order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported food items lacking requisite labelling and found to be non-compliant with food safety requirements were liable to confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty.

Analysis: The imported goods were food items governed by food safety requirements. The record indicated non-compliance with the statutory labelling norms. The adjudicating authority had relied on Section 5(ii) and Section 2(IX)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to hold that misbranded food items could not be imported. Although samples were not drawn for analysis, the violation of the food safety law was accepted. In view of the limited quantum involved and the finding of violation, interference with the adjudication was not warranted.

Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were upheld, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was not disturbed and the Revenue succeeded in its challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Imported food items that do not satisfy mandatory labelling and food safety requirements can be treated as prohibited or misbranded goods and subjected to confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty.

---