UNIK TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The present appeal, in C.M.A. (MD) No. 1523 of 2013, has been filed against the Miscellaneous Order No. 41809/2013, in C/Misc/4111/2013, dated 19 -7 -2013, in Appeal No. C/40962/2013, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, disposing of the miscellaneous application, for the release of the goods in question, by fixing the date for the hearing of the appeal, on 13 -9 -2013, instead of releasing the goods in question, imported by the appellant, as prayed for in the miscellaneous application.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that the appellant had filed three Bills of Entry, for a total quantity of 506 Metric Tons of 'Monosodium Glutamate', imported from China, in 22 containers. While so, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Tuticorin, had opened and examined the containers, containing the goods imported by the appellant under the Bills of Entry Nos. 3618504, dated 26 -5 -2011, 4324694, dated 10 -8 -2011 and 4376254, dated 17 -8 -2011, on receipt of certain information that the appellant had imported 'Monosodium Glutamate', an organic food additive, used as flavouring agent in foods, in violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, read with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) IT had also been stated that the imported goods, which in food additive, should conform to the specifications prescribed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Hence, samples had been drawn from the imported consignments and forwarded to the Referral Food Laboratory, Mysore. In the meanwhile, the first respondent had also raised certain issues, asking the appellant to show cause as to why the declared value of the imported goods should not be rejected, under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The appellant had also been asked to explain as to why the unit prices of the goods imported by it should not be re -determined, as per the said rules. The appellant had also been asked to show reasons as to why the goods in question, covered under the Bills of Entry filed by the appellant, should not be confiscated, under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962.