Case Law Details
Baby Marine Seafood Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs C.C, Cochin (CESTAT Bangalore)
In this case appellant while placing purchase order clarified to the vendor that the goods in question should be in compliance with the Indian Standards –Food safety Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulation, 2011 and Indian Food Safety and Standards Authority of India Regulation for microbiological requirements for fish and fishery products and also to meet other safety standards. In order to meet these standards, the vendor supplied the test certificate issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Social Republic of Vietnam which certified that the goods imported was in compliance with FSSAI.
Further, I find that on subsequent laboratory analysis, the said product failed in two out of eighteen quality and safety parameters and as a result of which NOC was not issued by the Food and Safety Standard Authority. Further, I find that the findings of both the authorities that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act is not legally justified.
Further, it is clear that confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act is permissible only when the goods have been imported in contrary to the prohibition under the Act or any other law for the time being in force which is not the case in the case of present import by the appellant. I also find that appellant has taken reasonable care and attention to ensure that the goods are imported in compliance with the Safety Standard Act. Since the sample was drawn after about two weeks from the arrival of the goods, it is possible that the contamination had occurred during the transit of the import of the goods or subsequently, for which appellant cannot be blamed and it cannot be said that the import is contrary to the prohibition imposed under the Act or any other applicable law being in force.
The perusal of Section 125 clearly shows that the import by the appellant is not contrary to any prohibition imposed under the Act or any other law for the time being in force. Hence, the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act is unwarranted and therefore the imposition and redemption fine is also unwarranted. Further, I find that the imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act is also not warranted in the present case because the penalty under 112(a) of the Act is imposable only in case of goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
