https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183197 Filled chocolate was treated as adulterated only if the analyst report identified hydrogenated vegetable oil in the prohibited chocolate portion; because the report did not distinguish between the chocolate and filled portions, adulteration could not be established. The misbranding charge also failed because Rule 32's ingredient disclosure requirement was exempted for confectionery weighing 20 grams or less, and the sample weighed 16 grams. On those findings, both allegations were negatived and the criminal proceedings were quashed. en-us Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:20:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183197 Filled chocolate was treated as adulterated only if the analyst report identified hydrogenated vegetable oil in the prohibited chocolate portion; because the report did not distinguish between the chocolate and filled portions, adulteration could not be established. The misbranding charge also failed because Rule 32's ingredient disclosure requirement was exempted for confectionery weighing 20 grams or less, and the sample weighed 16 grams. On those findings, both allegations were negatived and the criminal proceedings were quashed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183197