Import policy exception for diabetic food narrowly construed; poppy seeds needed proof of specific coverage, and misdeclaration valuation failed.

Poppy seeds were held not to fall within the import-policy exception for "Diabetic Food" unless the importer proved that the goods themselves answered that description; without such proof, a specific import licence was required. The declared value was also found unsustainable because the valuation relied on mismatched comparable goods and material not put in notice, so the misdeclaration-based confiscation failed. Confiscation for unauthorised import without licence was maintained, while the redemption fine and quantified penalty on the main importer were remitted for fresh determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether poppy seeds were freely importable as "Diabetic Food" under the import policy, and (ii) whether the declared value was liable to be rejected and the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty sustained.

Issue (i): whether poppy seeds were freely importable as "Diabetic Food" under the import policy

Analysis: The goods were consumer goods and, absent an exception, required a specific licence. The exception for "Diabetic Foods" was invoked, but the material produced only showed that poppy seeds could be used as an ingredient in medicines or as nutritious food for diabetic patients. That was not enough to establish that poppy seeds themselves were "Diabetic Food" in the sense of food prescribed or recommended for diabetic treatment. The importer failed to discharge the burden of proof.

Conclusion: The import was not covered by the "Diabetic Food" exception and was therefore unauthorised without a specific licence; this finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the declared value was liable to be rejected and the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty sustained

Analysis: The finding of misdeclaration of value was not supported by the record. Reliance was placed on figures relating to Grade I goods and on material not put in the notice, while the subject goods were described as Grade II. The valuation at Rs. 13 per kg. CIF was therefore unsustainable. Since misdeclaration failed, confiscation under the clause relating to misdeclaration could not stand, though confiscation for import without licence under the other clause survived. As the basis for redemption fine and the quantified penalty was not properly determined, those matters required fresh consideration. The penalty on the proprietor was not interfered with.

Conclusion: Rejection of the declared value and the confiscation under the misdeclaration clause were set aside, confiscation for unauthorised import was confirmed, and the redemption fine and the quantified penalty on the main importer were remitted for fresh determination; this issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part, the matter was remanded for fresh quantification of value, redemption fine and penalty on the main importer, while confiscation for import without licence and the minor penalty were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: An imported commodity is not covered by a policy exception for a specialised class of food unless the importer proves that the goods themselves answer that description, and a valuation finding based on unproved or mismatched comparable goods cannot be sustained.

---