M/S Food Mart vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Food Mart, sought a direction for the provisional release and re-export of seized goods. The goods, including various food items like instant coffee, chewing gum, and chocolates, valued at Rs. 1,48,67,363/-, were intercepted on March 24, 2022, while being transported from Mundra Port to Mumbai. The vehicle carrying the goods was valued at Rs. 21,71,250/-. The authorities seized the goods and the vehicle under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, deeming them liable for confiscation under Sections 111 and 115 of the same Act. The seizure was based on alleged non-compliance with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and related regulations, including the absence of the FSSAI logo, license number, accurate importer details, and vegetarian/non-vegetarian markings.

Held

The Court found that the prayer for re-export of the goods could not be granted as the goods had already been transported away from the port of import and intercepted elsewhere. The Court explicitly stated it would not express any opinion on the petitioner's claim for re-export, suggesting the petitioner pursue legal recourse separately. Regarding the prayer for provisional release, the Court noted that the petitioner had already made applications for it. The Court acknowledged that Section 110A of the Customs Act empowers authorities to grant provisional release with appropriate conditions. The Court distinguished the present case from the precedent cited by the petitioner (Zip Zap Exim (P) Ltd.) due to the alleged serious breaches of food safety standards in this instance. Consequently, the Court directed the competent Customs authority to decide the pending applications for provisional release within one week, imposing such conditions as deemed fit. The Court made no comment on the merits of the case or the nature of the conditions to be imposed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondent No. 3 (Customs) to order provisional release and re-export of the seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, considering the alleged non-compliance with food safety norms? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for provisional release and re-export of the seized goods, relying on the Division Bench decision in Zip Zap Exim (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India, which permitted re-export upon furnishing 25% of the customs duty. The petitioner had also made prior applications for provisional release. Revenue's Contention: Respondent No. 2's affidavit-in-reply highlighted non-compliance with food safety regulations, including the absence of the FSSAI logo, license number, accurate importer details, and vegetarian/non-vegetarian markings. The petitioner had also expressed an inability to furnish the required bank guarantee for provisional release.