Case Law Details
Unik Traders Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that confiscation of goods cannot be sustained as imported goods are provisionally released after complying with the necessary requirement of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Facts- On the basis of intelligence that “Monosodium Glutamate”, a food additive used as flavouring agent has been imported in violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act) and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (PFA Rules) read with provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the D.R.I officers, Tuticorin opened and examined the imported goods in 22 containers declared as “Monosodium Glutamate”.
The name and address of the manufacturer were not found mentioned on the bags. As per Section 2 (v) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the “Monosodium Glutamate” is covered under the definition of “Food” and thereby come under the purview of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. According to Rule 32 (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the name and complete address of the manufacturer and the importer should be mentioned on each of the bags that contain the food items. Therefore, the officers seized the entire quantity of 506 MTs of “Monosodium Glutamate” imported in the 22 containers under Mahazar.
Notably, the Hon’ble High Court directed provisional release of goods on complying with certain conditions. The original authority gave option to the importer to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs.30 lakhs. A penalty of Rs.70 lakhs was imposed u/s. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The amounts paid by the appellant were ordered to be appropriated. The original authority also ordered for enforcing the bond and bank guarantee executed by appellant. Aggrieved by such order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
