TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 737
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2025 in respect of 500 bags of Agricultural Rejected Nut Pieces, Residue and Waste, which according to the respondent is cattle feed, unfit for human consumption. Based on an alert issued by the National Customs Targeting Centre (NCTC), the customs authorities detained the consignment and referred the same for testing. 2. Three tests have been conducted, on 26.09.2025 by Vinacontrol Ho Chi Minh City, 12.12.2025 by Referral Food Laboratory, Mysuru and 30.01.2026 by Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi The first test report dated 26.09.2025 concluded that the goods were unfit for human consumption. Report dated 12.12.2025 states as follows: 'Note 1: Since the sample is broken bits of cashew nuts, it is tested under FSSR2.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was allowed and extension order dated 19.06.2026 was quashed. Consequently, the authorities were directed to return the seized goods upon furnishing of indemnity by the respondent. The authorities were also granted liberty to initiate and complete adjudication proceedings under Section 28 of the Act. 7. These appeals are filed at the instance of the authorities challenging the direction for immediate release and assailing the conclusion of the Writ Court that the extension of seizure should have been made within six months from the date of detention, being 24.10.2025, and not six months from date of seizure, being 01.01.2026. 8. We have heard Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi for the appellants/Customs and Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan for the respondent/as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o him, since the rate is below the notified price, the goods are rendered 'prohibited', liable for seizure. No such notification has been produced before us despite our specifically seeking the same. 12.That apart, we have already found that one test report finds that the imported goods constitute cattle feed, unfit for human consumption, and two reports that certify that the goods did not conform to the required standards of human consumption. We thus reiterate that the argument that the goods are prohibited is, as at this stage at any event, baseless and of no merit whatsoever. 13. In fact, the assessee has produced purchase order dated 19.10.2025 from the TND 1281 Kolpakkam Women Milk Producers' Cooperative Society Limited, for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ths and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period so specified: 17. Section 110(2) lays an embargo on the authorities to issue notice of seizure within 6 months of the seizure, failing which the goods would be released. The Proviso enables the extension of the seizure within six months, on condition that reasons are recorded for such extension. The question is whether the six month period for extension should be counted from the date of detention or seizure. 18. The extension in the case was on 19.06.2026, which, if reckoned from 01.01.2026, is within the time stipulated under the proviso. However, the Writ Court has proceeded on the basis that the extension must be reckoned from the date of de....