TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D Borkhedi for assessment at rate of duty corresponding to 'betel nut product known as supari' in chapter 21 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 had been seized, under section 110 of Customs Act, 1962, in the reasonable belief that chapter 8 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 titled 'edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons' covering 'areca nuts' is more befitting and, in the normal course, such a dispute over rival entries in First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, with differential duty as the outcome, would not have impeded the provisional release conditional upon adequate security for safeguarding revenue. However, in the present instance, such conditional relief was denied to the appellant as the goods were purportedly unfit for human consumption. 2. On commencement of hearing of the appeal, it had been contended on behalf of the appellant that the conflicting test results, with some arising from unauthorized samples tested without regulatory authorization, could cloud appreciation of arguments and that the decision of the Commissioner of Customs had failed to elaborate upon, or furnish, the results relied upon for penalizing the importer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sides, had been issued. Moreover, the contours of such dispute, even with added burden of restriction imposed by the Foreign Trade Policy on goods covered by the alternative classification, did not lend itself to denial of access to the goods. It was contended by Learned Counsel for the appellant that, after seizure of impugned goods in November-December 2021, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) drew samples that, upon testing by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) at Vadodara, was reported as 'unfit for human consumption' contradicting the test report dated 21st October 2021 from M/s Qualichem Laboratories that had been submitted by the importer as being compliant with Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 6. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the 'supari' imported by them corresponds to tariff item 2106 90 30 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and freely importable on discharge of the duty so determined. It was further contended that coverage under the chapter pertaining to 'miscellaneous edible preparations' also mandated certification by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), the duly constituted agency under Food S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Examiner. We also remain unimpressed by the underlying suggestion that any report, other than 'unfit for human consumption', would not be to the satisfaction of the investigators presaging endless references to laboratories of one sort or the other which, to a judicial authority concerned with applying known law to established facts, is suggestive of unappealing obduracy. Oddly, too, it is the revenue administration, whose primary authority over the impugned goods lies elsewhere, which is exhibiting fastidiousness about the alleged toxicity of 'supari' to an extent that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) does not appear to be. 7. In re Fomento Resources Pvt Ltd, and in Reliance Cellulose Products Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise [1997 (93) ELT 646 (SC)] relied upon therein by Revenue, the dispute was about classification in which the expertise of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory is sufficiently acknowledged to be for the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in re Reliance Cellulose Products Limited, to commend the superiority of its reports except where palpably demonstrated as wrong. The present dispute has digressed from the reasonable belief of mis-classi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omain expertise of Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) in relation to classification of goods does not extend to the prescriptive requirements of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. We cannot, in these circumstances, approve of an unending series of tests on requests and counter-requests; we did so, and with reluctance, solely owing to the procedural lacunae that strained the credibility of the conflicting reports produced before us. We now have before us a test report that is not sought for discarding except by assertion of the sanctity of Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) which has no domain expertise over food safety standards. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has also not discredited this result. The denial of provisional release must be reviewed in the light of this report under section 110A of Customs Act, 1962 forthwith and, in any case, not later than ten days from the date of receipt of this order, and, as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, strictly within the framework of the law. 10. Certification of edibles as 'unfit for human consumption' is, under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, in the exclusive domain of Food Sa....