Case Law Details
Rasrasna Foods Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.-Mundra (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
ThThe brief facts of the case are that the appellant had imported a consignment of Sajji Khar at Mundra Port under warehousing Bill of entry No.6272028 dated 28.12.2019. On 16.01.2020. The FSSAI authority certified that the appellant holds FSSAI license and the sample conforms to the standards laid down. On filing of Ex-Bond Bill of entry dated 30.06.2020 by the appellant for clearance of the goods of the warehouse, a show cause notice dated 14.08.2020 was issued proposing confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) on the ground that as per FSSAI letter dated 19.03.2020, Sajji Khar was a non-specified product and approval under Non-Specified Food Regulations of 2017 was required . The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No.MCH/ADC/AK/87/2020-21 dated 11.11.2020 confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) and allowed re-export of the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.5 Lacs in lieu of confiscation, healso imposed a penalty of Rs.2.5 Lacs under Section 112(a) on the appellant. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner of Customs, Mundra, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Ahmedabad. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-008-21-22 dated 27.04.2021, rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in Appeal, the appellant preferred the present appeal.
CESTAT observed that CBIC directive issued on 21.05.2020 regarding the compliance of FSS (Approval of non-specified food and food ingredients) Regulations, 2017 whereas the Bill of entry for warehousing of goods was filed on 28.12.2019 and also the import has taken place much before the instruction dated 21.05.2020. In my view the instruction dated 21.05.2020 cannot be applied retrospectively. It is a settled law that any condition is imposed on the import shall not apply to the import already originated from the port of shipping. In the present case also the instruction dated 21.05.2020 was issued much after not only the import of goods but also after filing of warehousing Bill of entry. It is also undisputed fact that the same product i.e. Sajji Khar has been allowed to be imported without the condition as imposed by the department in the present case on the earlier occasions by various importers.
As per my above discussions and findings, I am of the view that the goods are not liable for confiscation. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
