Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
M/s. Om Sai Trading Company – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10109 of 2019
Decided On : 05-09-2019
Customs Act, 1962 – Section 11 – Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 – Section 3(2) – Regulation No. 2.12 & 2.3.57(5) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standard & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 – Seizure of Betel Nuts and Truck – Order for provisional release of Truck – Areca Nuts, commonly known as Betel Nuts is capable of the formation of Fungal growth during various stages of its production, storage or transportation – Consignment of imported Betel /Areca Nut shall not be cleared through risk management system and all imported consignments shall be subjected to 100% sampling and testing – Areca Nuts / Betel Nuts is to be tested strictly and it cannot be said that Betel Nuts being a raw material unless processed and packed for sale for consumption, cannot be subjected to laboratory test – Nothing has been brought to show that very sampling and testing of Areca Nut was not in accordance with law – Provisional release of seized goods is to be refused when goods do not fulfill statutory compliance requirements of any Act, Rule, Regulation or any other law for the time being enforce – Since Food Laboratory Report has found that Betel Nut are not fit for human consumption, no fault may be found with rejection of request of petitioners for grant of release – In given facts and circumstances of case, where matter is still under investigation and even some accredited labs have come into existence, High Court need not interfere with seizure of Betel Nuts at this stage and this issue be kept open for consideration at appropriate stage after investigation is over and respondents receive a report as regards country of origin from an accredited lab within a period of three months by following established procedures – Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 34, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42)
JUDGMENT :
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
The petitioners in the present case are seeking the following reliefs :
(ii) Quashing of the Consequential Letter No. 2647 dated 02.04.2019 (Annexure 4) whereby, on the basis of an exparte Sample Test report from Officer in Charge, Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata (Extension Centre, Raxaul), reporting the samples to be non confirming to the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation 2011, the application for provisional release of the Betel Nutes has been rejected;
(iii) Quashing of the consequential order of provisional release dated 04.04.2018 (Annexure 5) vide Letter No. 2707 to the extent that provisional release has been ordered on submission of the cash security of 20 % of the value of the Truck; and
(iv) Direction upon the respondents to release the goods pending disposal of the instant writ application."
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the registered dealers under the provisions of the Goods and Services Taxes (GST) Act and in course of day to day business the petitioners dispatched a consignment of 15865 Kgs. Betel Nuts contained in 325 bags to one M/s Mahaveer Traders of Coimbatore (Tamilnadu) by the Truck bearing Registration No. KA-01-8691 through M/s Ajay Goods Carrier on 01.02.2019 along with the requisite documents in support of the same including e-way Bill. Out of the total consignment of 15865 kgs of Betel Nuts, 10350 Kgs. Contained in 208 bags belongs to petitioner no. 1 and 5516 Kgs. contained in 117 bags belongs to petitioner no. 2.
3. It is stated that in course of transportation the truck was detained by the officers of the Forbesganj Customs Preventive Division near a Toll Plaza on 06.02.2019, the same were taken to office of the Assistant Commissioner, Customs (P) Division, Forbesganj for verification of the papers. The documents were said to have been produced before the respondents but without considering the same and without even verifying its veracity the Betel Nuts of the truck have been seized by the Inspector/Customs (P), Forbesganj for the alleged violation of Notification No. 9/96 (NT)-Cus, dated 22.01.1996 issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. A copy of the seizure Memo dated 06.02.2019 was handed over to the Truck Driver.
4. The petitioners when approached the jurisdictional officers along with their representations and all documents as contained in Annexure 3' to the writ application and also filed applications to the Chairman, Central Board of the Indirect Taxes and Customs, Chief Commissioner of Customs and Commissioner of Customs for early release of the goods, the petitioners have been served with a Letter Dated 02.04.2019 as contained in Memo No. 2647 whereby on the basis of Sample Test Report of the seized Betel Nuts it has been held that the same is not fit for human consumption and therefore, cannot be provisionally released and thus, the application for provisional release has been rejected vide Annexure 4' to the writ application.
5. The truck in question has, however, been released provisionally vide Annexure 5' to the writ application on a condition to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs and execution of a bond for full seizure value and cash security of 20 % of the seized vehicle.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Sample Test Report obtained from the Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata (hereinafter in short 'CFL')on which reliance has been placed by the re
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
