https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247556 Imported food goods had to comply with the labelling requirements in force at the time of import under Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, along with the relevant customs and health circulars. The package lacked the full manufacturer address and date of manufacture, and the best-before declaration did not cure that defect. Later FSSAI guidelines could not be applied retrospectively to earlier imports because administrative instructions operate prospectively. The Tribunal had no legal basis to authorise re-packing and re-labelling in a customs bonded premises, especially after shelf life had expired, so the confiscation order as modified by the appellate authority was restored. en-us Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247556 Imported food goods had to comply with the labelling requirements in force at the time of import under Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, along with the relevant customs and health circulars. The package lacked the full manufacturer address and date of manufacture, and the best-before declaration did not cure that defect. Later FSSAI guidelines could not be applied retrospectively to earlier imports because administrative instructions operate prospectively. The Tribunal had no legal basis to authorise re-packing and re-labelling in a customs bonded premises, especially after shelf life had expired, so the confiscation order as modified by the appellate authority was restored. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247556