Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2016 (4) TMI 786

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....forward the samples to the Notified Laboratory and to get their report and forward the same to the first respondent for the purpose of clearance of the perishable goods imported by the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:- (a) The petitioner has been importing Wet Dates for the past several years from Gulf countries. They have been importing the Wet Dates in bulk quantities and after customs clearance, the Dates are being sold in the wholesale market at Kerala and they are being repacked and sold in India. The petitioner is carrying on their business by duly obtaining the license under the FSS Act, 2006 from the Government of India, Food Safety and Standard Authority of India. (b) The petitioner wants....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....export from Dubai to India. The petitioner filed the Phyto Sanitary certificate for re-export issued by Ministry of Environment and Water, United Arab Emirates and the certificate of Origin issued by Dubai Chamber, Bill of Lading, packing List and Commercial Invoice. The above Dates are of fresh crops. The officers of the second respondent made a visual inspection on 15.12.2015. However, they have not taken the samples on the ground that the shelf life of the product is less than 60%. Therefore, the petitioner sent a letter dated 19.12.2015 to the second respondent, the authorized officer, FSSAI, requesting them for import clearance of the Dates after taking the sample and sending them to laboratory test and to forward their report. (d) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent and to forward the samples to the Notified Laboratory and to get their report and forward the same to the first respondent for the purpose of clearance of the perishable goods imported by the petitioner. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that they have informed the second respondent that they are not familiar with the FSSAI Label Standards, as the Customs have instructed to get FSSAI Certificate only from November 2015, and therefore, the suppliers have not followed the Label Standards. The petitioner requested the second respondent to collect the samples and forward the same to Laboratory for testing. The petitioner further states that packing lapse is only curable defect. As the crops are very fresh and new crops, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uest has not been considered by the second respondent. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent submitted that the goods were manufactured long back and according to them, it may not be suitable for human consumption. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that without any laboratory test, by mere visual examination, it cannot be stated that the goods are unfit for human consumption. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made on either side, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation to the second respondent, for the....