Tribunal allows re-export of organic cashew kernels after dry heating processing despite FSSAI safety failures

CESTAT Bangalore allowed appellant's appeal for re-export of 4536 kgs organic cashew kernels after dry heating processing. The goods were initially imported for home consumption but 200 of 400 cartons failed FSSAI safety standards. Lower authorities confiscated goods and imposed penalty, rejecting re-export request citing Foreign Trade Policy violations. CESTAT found no justification for denial, noting goods in customs warehouse weren't unfit for consumption and appellant intended overseas re-export. Tribunal set aside confiscation order and directed customs to permit dry heating processing and re-export within one month.

---

---

Issues:
Whether the appellant can be allowed to reexport 4536 kgs. of Organic Cashew Kernel SWP imported against Bill of Entry No.8524578 dated 03.05.2022.

Analysis:
The appellant initially exported 400 cartons of Organic Cashew Kernel SWP which were rejected by the overseas buyer due to label mismatch and returned to the Cochin Port. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry claiming exemption under Notification No.45/2017-Cus but faced rejection from FSSAI. The adjudicating authority held the goods liable for confiscation under the Customs Act and imposed penalties. The appeal to the Commissioner(Appeals) was rejected, leading to a writ petition in the Kerala High Court, which was not entertained. The appellant then approached the CESTAT Bangalore. The appellant conducted tests showing the goods were fit for human consumption, arguing for re-export after dry heating.

The key issue was whether the appellant could re-export the 4536 kgs. of Organic Cashew Kernel SWP. The appellant had exported the goods, faced rejection, and re-imported them, seeking to re-export after processing. The FSSAI report deemed a portion of the goods unfit for home consumption. The appellant requested an amendment for re-export under a different notification. The authorities had confiscated the goods and imposed penalties based on non-conformity to FSSAI standards.

The Tribunal found no merit in the authorities' decision. The appellant's request for re-export after dry heating was justified as the goods were not declared unfit for human consumption by the FSSAI. The latest test report confirmed compliance with FSSAI standards. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders for confiscation, destruction, and penalties, directing the Department to allow the re-export after processing within a month.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was permitted to re-export the goods after dry heating. The Tribunal found no justification for the confiscation and penalties imposed, as the goods were deemed fit for human consumption after testing and processing.

---