Imported adulterated food may be confiscated, but redemption on payment of fine must be separately considered.

Imported toor whole found contaminated with lindane and aflatoxin beyond permissible limits was treated as adulterated food, and the prohibition on importing adulterated food supported confiscation under the Customs Act read with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The challenge based on allegedly unrepresentative samples and possible reprocessing did not displace the adulteration finding, so confiscation was sustained. However, once confiscation is authorised, the adjudicating authority must independently consider whether redemption of the goods on payment of fine should be offered. Because that statutory discretion was not addressed, the matter was remanded for reconsideration of the redemption option.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported toor whole, found adulterated on laboratory testing, was liable to confiscation under the Customs Act read with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act; (ii) Whether, after authorising confiscation, the adjudicating authority was bound to consider granting an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation.

Issue (i): Whether the imported toor whole, found adulterated on laboratory testing, was liable to confiscation under the Customs Act read with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Analysis: The laboratory material showed that the goods contained lindane and aflatoxin beyond the permissible limits and were therefore adulterated. Import of adulterated food was prohibited under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the Customs authorities could act upon that prohibition by invoking the confiscatory provisions of the Customs Act. The challenge to confiscation on the ground that the samples were unrepresentative and that reprocessing might make the goods fit for consumption was not accepted as a ground to dislodge the finding of adulteration. The confiscation itself was thus held to be within jurisdiction and sustainable.

Conclusion: The finding of adulteration and the order of confiscation were upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether, after authorising confiscation, the adjudicating authority was bound to consider granting an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation.

Analysis: Where confiscation is authorised, the Customs Act requires the adjudicating officer to apply his mind to the availability of redemption by payment of fine in appropriate cases. The order showed no consideration of this statutory discretion. The authority was therefore required to decide whether redemption on fine should be offered, after hearing the assessee and considering the relevant circumstances and the applicable provisions.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for reconsideration of the redemption-fine option under the Customs Act.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation was sustained, but the adjudication was set aside to the limited extent that the authority must reconsider whether the goods should be allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation.

Ratio Decidendi: When confiscation of imported goods is legally authorised, the adjudicating authority must independently consider whether redemption on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation should be granted; failure to address that statutory discretion warrants remand for fresh consideration.

---