Re-export of confiscated areca nuts may be allowed where deterioration makes refusal impractical and regulatory discretion is properly exercised.

Imported areca nuts found unfit for human consumption could still be dealt with under the customs and import regulatory framework, and the authorities were entitled to penalise non-compliance with food safety requirements. At the same time, the refusal to permit re-export was held unnecessary where the goods had deteriorated and could have industrial uses, and the Tribunal was competent to examine the legality and propriety of the discretion exercised under the applicable regulations. On the facts, the direction allowing re-export on payment of redemption fine and reducing the penalty was found reasonable and was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside absolute confiscation of the imported areca nuts and permitting re-export on payment of redemption fine with reduction of penalty.

Analysis: The imported goods were found unfit for human consumption on the basis of laboratory reports, but the Court noted that the finding of prohibited import and alleged misdeclaration was doubtful in view of the origin certificates and the material on record. The Court accepted that the Customs authorities could penalize import of goods that did not satisfy food safety standards, but held that refusal to permit re-export would serve no useful purpose where the goods had deteriorated and could also have industrial uses. The Court further held that the Tribunal, in appeal, was competent to examine the legality and propriety of the discretion exercised under the applicable import regulations and could direct re-export as an available option under the regulatory framework. The reduction of redemption fine and penalty was also found to be reasonable in the facts.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order permitting re-export on payment of redemption fine and reducing the penalty was upheld, and interference was declined.

---