2006 (12) TMI 337

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-01-2005 for its clearance. After getting a sample of the goods tested in the Port Health Laboratory, the Customs authorities took the view that the item imported was adulterated food and hence prohibited under Section 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Accordingly, they held the goods to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The show-cause notice issued for this purpose was contested by the importer. In adjudication of the dispute, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the importer. He also directed re-export of the goods out of the country or destruction under the relevant Rules. The appeal filed by the party against the decision of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tated that, as per microbiological specification for chicken sausages (BIS specifications), the aerobic plate count per gram was 1x106 maximum. The request of the importer for fresh testing was not allowed by the original authority and the grievance about this was not heeded by the appellate authority either. 4. Today, the proprietor of the importer-concern submits that the subject goods, not packed in hermitically sealed container as required for luncheon meat, can hardly be equated with luncheon meat and that, there being no specifications for chicken sausages under the PFA Act/Rules, the item does not attract prohibition under Section 5 of the PFA Act and its import does not attract Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Learned JCDR....