TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court affirms CESTAT's order on goods release under Food Safety Act</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur, Versus M/s. Excellent Betelnut Products Pvt. Ltd.,</h3> The Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur, Versus M/s. Excellent Betelnut Products Pvt. Ltd., - TMI Issues Involved:1. Contradictory test reports and their implications.2. Jurisdiction and authority of the CESTAT to order provisional release.3. Compliance with Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and related regulations.Summary:1. Contradictory Test Reports and Their Implications:The respondent imported Arecanut/Betelnut, and samples were tested by CRCL, Mumbai, and Anacon Laboratory, Nagpur. CRCL reported insect infestation, while Anacon certified the samples as fit for human consumption. The Superintendent of Customs sought further clarification from CRCL, which deferred to FSSAI-accredited labs for certain tests. Despite Anacon's favorable report, the Superintendent requested additional testing from CRCL, New Delhi, which declared the samples unfit for human consumption. The CESTAT found that the Superintendent's actions were not consistent with the regulations and that the initial tests by CRCL and Anacon were not contradictory, as they addressed different aspects.2. Jurisdiction and Authority of the CESTAT to Order Provisional Release:The Commissioner of Customs denied provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, citing the unfitness of the goods for human consumption. The CESTAT overruled this, ordering provisional release, stating that the fitness for human consumption is beyond the scope of the Customs Act, 1962, and should be determined by FSSAI-accredited labs under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the CESTAT acted within its jurisdiction.3. Compliance with Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Related Regulations:The appellant argued that the referral to the CRCL, New Delhi, was justified under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. However, the High Court noted that the Superintendent's request for re-testing was not in line with Regulation 9 and Regulation 10(9) of the Food Safety and Standards (Import) Regulation, 2017. The court emphasized that the initial favorable report from the FSSAI-accredited Anacon Laboratory should have been sufficient, and the subsequent actions by the Superintendent were not supported by the applicable regulations.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law. It upheld the CESTAT's order for provisional release of the goods, emphasizing that the determination of fitness for human consumption falls under the purview of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and should be conducted by FSSAI-accredited laboratories. The court also noted that the actions of the Superintendent were not in compliance with the relevant regulations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
