Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether imported Sajji Khar required prior product approval under the Food Safety and Standards (Approval of Non-Specified Food and Food Ingredients) Regulations, 2017, and whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.
Analysis: The imported product was examined in light of the clarification issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, which stated that Sajji Khar/Papad Khar was to be treated as food not specified until standards were notified and that such consignments did not require product approval under the 2017 Regulations. The consignment had also been tested and certified against the applicable standards for foods not specified. The subsequent customs instruction of 21.05.2020 could not be applied to an import already made and warehousing bill already filed earlier, as the instruction could not operate retrospectively. On these facts, the goods could not be treated as contravening the regulatory requirement invoked for confiscation.
Conclusion: The confiscation was unsustainable and the redemption fine and penalty were set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was annulled with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent food authority clarifies that a consignment falls within the category of food not specified and does not require prior product approval, a later administrative instruction cannot be applied retrospectively to sustain confiscation or penal consequences for an earlier import.