KEJRIWAL ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by, the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking inter alia, the relief against the respondent No.2/Commissioner of Customs to release the goods in question, namely, Honey without any PFA (Prevention of Food Adulteration) check and health check. Further relief is prayed for quashing of CSL Test conducted by the respondent No.3/Director of Central Food Laboratory and under which test the consignment of Honey has been found to be adulterated/contaminated with an antibiotic, Chloramphenicol.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is engaged in the business of export of Agri Food Commodities and the petitioner No.2 is in the business of processing Honey and exporting the same out of India. The petitioners state that in the course of its export business, the petitioner No.1 got an export order from a US Company namely, LAMEX. The petitioner No.1, through petitioner No.2 supplied Honey to the said US buyer. As per the contentions of the petitioner, after the shipment was sent, the buyer LAMEX returned a part of the consignment on the ground that the same was found to be containing moisture beyond their requirement and acceptable limit. On return of the said shipment, the customs official sent a sample of Honey to the respondent No.3 and which sample when tested, was found to be adulterated containing the antibiotic Chloramphenicol. The petitioners further contend that in terms of the Custom Circular No.1/02 dated 8.1.2002, it has been clarified by the respondent No.1 that the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereafter PFA Act) is not applicable for food items meant for export on re-export. The petitioners further contend that since the Commissioner of Customs/respondent No.2 has identified the re-imported Honey as that, which was exported i.e meant for export on re-export, the goods should be released as it is recorded in the customs report that the foreign buyer had sent the goods back due to quality issue of moisture content.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress on the italicised portion of the circular to contend that the said line in the circular is wholly independent of the other portions of the circular and that the circular is not to be interpreted so as to be applicable only to imports by EOUs (Export Oriented Units) or units in EPZ/SEZ (Export Processing Zone/ Special Economic Zone).