Page 201 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN v. DINESH MEENA, JOINT COMMR., CUS. (PREVENTIVE) 247

guess. It operates and applies in a totally different fact situation and only where
goods are imported and passed through the channel provided under the Cus-
toms Act, which is not the case in hand.
47. Circular No. 30 of 2017 only lays down the procedure for having the
seized goods re-tested. And Memorandum dated 4th June, 2019 only talks of ad-
ditional laboratories for conducting tests of Areca/betel nut and other products.
48. It is seen that in MJC No. 2185 of 2013 titled as the Union of India &
Ors. v. Salsar Transport Company & anr, decided on 24-7-2013, the Learned Single
Judge of this Court took a view that the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging
and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 would be applicable only where the product is
sold in a package with inscription of the statutory warning that “chewing of Su-
pari is injurious to health” and such product complying with the Food Safety and
Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011 which view
stands affirmed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1186 of 2013, ti-
tled as The Union of India & Ors. v. Salsar Transport Company & Anr. decided on
25-11-2013.
49. We find no reason to take a contrary view, more so, when the goods
in question are yet raw, as an unfinished product, meant to be transported to an-
other State for it to be processed and packaged, whereafter, only, eventually sold
in an open market and if the goods are actually unsafe food then it is not the
provision of the Customs Act, which can be invoked, for not falling within its
purview.
50. Thus, in view of our aforesaid discussions, we set aside the judg-
ment dated 5-9-2019 passed in CWJC No. 6657 of 2019 titled as M/s. J.K. Traders &
Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. by a Learned Single Judge of this Court and allow
the writ petitioners’ prayer of quashing the seizure memo dated 6th of February,
2019, as also all consequential actions seizing the goods and vehicle in question,
for such action to be without any basis having no mandate of law.
51. The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the prayer with a fur-
ther direction to the authorities concerned to forthwith release the goods.
52. The present appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.
53. [Per : Anil Kumar, Upadhyay, J.]. - I agree.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 247 (Del.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

D.N. Patel, CJ. and C. Hari Shankar, J.
NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN
Versus
DINESH MEENA, JOINT COMMR., CUS. (PREVENTIVE)

W.P. (C) No. 13122 of 2019 & C.M. Appl. No. 53480 of 2019 (stay), decided
on 12-12-2019
Adjudication proceedings - Methodology - Challenge in Writ proceed-
ings - Show Cause Notice with regard to seizure of Gold Bars has already been
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  217