- (1.) This appeal is at the instance of a writ-petitioner and is directed against an order dated 11th March, 2011, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the said learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant.
(2.) The case made out by the appellant in the writ-application, out of which the present appeal arises, may be summed up thus: a) The appellant has a unit of refining Crude Palm Oil and for manufacturing the Refined Palm Oil at Haldia as per specification prescribed under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The said unit of the appellant is registered with the Central Excise Authorities. The said unit of the appellant is capable of reducing the free fatty acid up to 0.25% by refining of the Crude Palm Oil. b) In the usual course of business, the appellant on December 23, 2010 purchased two consignments of Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade) from Indonesia. Those two consignments were shipped against the Bill of Lading dated December 15, 2010 and on December 22, 2010 the same arrived at the port of Haldia. c) The Crude Palm Oil being exempted from customs duty when imported for manufacture of refined oil, the appellant furnished a Bond, under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for the Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. d) On learning about the arrival of the said two consignments at the Port of Haldia, the appellant filed Bill of Entry dated December 23, 2010 for the clearance. The appellant declared full particulars of the shipping documents in the said Bill of Entry, which, inter alia, included the Pre-Shipment Certificate of weight and quality dated December 14, 2010. e) The appraising officers of Customs drew the samples from the consignments for testing purpose and withheld the clearance until further order after the discharge of the Cargo in the tanks situated in the unit of the appellant at Haldia. As a matter of fact, before the discharge of the said cargo into the tanks of factory, the appellant in writing dated 22nd December, 2010 applied for permission of customs for the same which was allowed. f) The samples from the imported consignments were drawn on January 4, 2011 by the customs authority and were forwarded to the University of Calcutta for test on the very same date. The University of Calcutta by its test report dated January 6, 2011 confirmed that the acid value was 9.77 in the sample. g) The samples of the said consignments were tested and retested by the Central Food Laboratory and the Central Food Laboratory issued a purported Test Report alleging that the samples did not conform to the standard of Palm Oil laid down under Item No.A.17.19 of Appendix-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 on the ground that the acid value was higher than the prescribed limit, which is prescribed for Palm Oil as defined under the said A.17.19. h) According to the appellant, it has imported Crude Palm Oil and the same has neither been defined under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act nor is there any prescribed standard of Crude Palm Oil thereunder. i) The Authorized Officer (Haldia), Food Safety & Standard Authority of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, by its letters dated January 10, 2011 and January 24, 2011 informed the appellant that the samples did not conform to the standards laid down under PFA 1955 due to high acid value and hence, the NOC was not being issued to the Customs Authority for clearance. j) Hence, the writ-application was filed claiming the following relief: a) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents, each of them, their subordinates and officers to act in accordance with law without discrimination and to allow the petitioner to process the imported consignment under Bill of Entry Nos. 2472693 and 2471923 dated 23rd December 2001 to conform the same to the standards laid down under PFA 1955 and upon such processing to permit the clearance thereof in such time and manner as may be permitted by the said Hon ble Court; b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari directing and commanding the respondents to transmit the records relating to the case to the said Hon ble Court after certifying the same so that conscionable justice may be administered on the basis thereof; c) Rule NISI in terms of prayers above; d) Injunction restraining the Respondents and each of them their officers and subordinates from causing any delay or further delay in allowing the allowing the petitioner to process the imported consignment under Bill of Entry No.2471923 dated 23rd December 2010 to conform to the standards laid down under PFA 1955 and upon such processing in clearance thereof any further in any manner whatsoever; e) ad-interim order in terms of prayer above; f) Costs of and incidental to this application be paid to the petitioners by the respondents; g) Such further and/or other order or orders be made and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon ble Court may seem just and proper.
(3.) The aforesaid writ-application was opposed by the Customs Authority although no affidavit-in-opposition was given and the learned Single Judge by the order impugned has dismissed the said writ-application. According to the learned Single Judge, there is no provision of law which provides for processing of imported food before clearance to bring the same to conform to the prescribed standard and the imported food which is deemed to be adulterated or otherwise not in conformity with the standard prescribed by the PFA Rule, is either to be re-exported or destroyed. The learned Single Judge, thus, arrived at the conclusion that the consignments were not in conformity with the standard prescribed of PFA Rules.;