Excellent Betelnut Products Private ... vs Commissioner Central Goods And Service ... on 29 March, 2022
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 Safety and Standards Act, 2006, for domestically
produced and externally sourced edibles, as a pre-requisite under that
statute. Among the records furnished by the appellant are reports
dated 21st October 2021 of M/s Qualichem Laboratories as having
passed muster for the purposes of Food Safety and Standards Act,
2006. It was submitted that reference was also made on 2nd November
2021, apparently at the prompting of investigators, by the Food Safety
and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to M/s Testtex who, vide
communication dated 11th November 2021, intimated the goods to be
'unfit for human consumption' which was speculated upon by
Learned Counsel as the proximate cause for denial of the permission
C/85127/2022
6
after the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay directed the Commissioner
of Customs to decide within the bounds of law. It would appear that
the risk attached to edibles found unfit for human consumption
relegates the commercial detriment consequent upon an erroneous
determination to an inconsequential footnote. And yet, that such a
noble endeavour appeared to have been undertaken furtively, instead
of with bold steps in the full glare of light as a responsible, and
responsive, administration should have and without any explanation
whatsoever, gives cause for pause. This Tribunal was, thus,
constrained to issue direction for drawal of fresh samples and testing
which, as reported by M/s Qualichem Laboratories, appears to be in
conformity the original submission to customs authorities. It also
appears from the proposal of Learned Authorized Representative that
customs authorities are loathe to accept it and prefer, instead, to assert
the exclusive credibility of the report of the Central Revenue Control
Laboratory by relying on the observation of the Tribunal in Fomento
Resources Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Vijayawada [2019
(7) TMI 728 -CESTAT Hyderabad] that
'8.... the test report of the Chemical Examiner or the Chief
Chemist..... cannot be brushed aside in favour of reports of
private person obtained by the assessee.'
as justification for the duplicates of samples to be tested in referral
laboratory of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
We are not particularly impressed by this suggestion as the purported
C/85127/2022
7
observation is merely record of submissions of the respondent therein
and the final decision was to discard the report of the Chemical
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.