<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1991 (8) TMI 227 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91042</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:49:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128104" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (8) TMI 227 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91042</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91042</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>