Tribunal confirms animal feed not for human consumption, dismisses misdeclaration suspicion, upholds confiscation.

The Tribunal upheld its decision that goods imported as animal feed were not fit for human consumption, dismissing Revenue's suspicion of misdeclaration. The Tribunal's reliance on laboratory reports and samples led to the conclusion that no misdeclaration occurred, negating the need for a substantial question of law. The appeal challenging the confiscation order was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's findings and decision based on factual analysis and lack of misdeclaration in importing goods not intended for human consumption.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order of reversing Commissioner (Appeals) and order-in-original on grounds of confiscation of goods for misdeclaration; Substantial questions of law regarding import of goods not for human consumption; Confiscation order based on suspicion of goods fit for human consumption; Tribunal's factual findings based on laboratory report and samples drawn by Revenue officials; Tribunal's conclusion that goods were animal feed, not fit for human consumption; Revenue's suspicion of goods being consumed as human food; Tribunal's decision not to require FSSAI certificate due to lack of misdeclaration.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's order reversing the Commissioner (Appeals) and the order-in-original, arguing substantial questions of law regarding the import of goods not meant for human consumption. The goods imported by the respondent were suspected to be fit for human consumption, leading to a confiscation order based on misdeclaration to evade higher customs duty and FSSAI certification. The Tribunal relied on findings from a laboratory report and samples drawn by Revenue officials to determine that the goods were not fit for human consumption.

2. The appellant contended that the goods were liable for confiscation due to suspicion of misdeclaration. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the issue was about misdeclaration and provided evidence from invoices and examination reports indicating that the goods were for industrial use as animal feed, not for human consumption. The Tribunal concluded that there was no misdeclaration and no attempt to bypass FSSAI regulations, dismissing the need for a substantial question of law.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings from the laboratory report and samples drawn by Revenue officials, confirming that the goods were animal feed, not meant for human consumption. The Revenue's suspicion that the goods might be consumed as human food was addressed by the Tribunal's analysis, which found no scope for confiscation due to lack of misdeclaration. The Tribunal's inquiry into the import prohibition for goods meant for industrial use but consumed as animal feed did not yield any prohibition beyond human consumption concerns.

4. The Tribunal's finding and conclusion were deemed not perverse or inconsistent with the evidence or legal provisions. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, upholding the Tribunal's decision based on factual analysis and lack of misdeclaration regarding the import of goods not fit for human consumption.

---