and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, ‘the Act of 2006’), it was
submitted that reference was rightly made to the Referral Laboratory.
Inviting attention to the Notification dated 9-10-2019 issued by the
FSSAI, it was submitted that the Customs Officials at
Airport/Port/Inland Container Depot (ICD), as mentioned in
Annexure 1, had been notified as Authorised Officers under Section 25
read with Section 47(5) of the Act of 2006. In view of
Regulation 13(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (Import)
Regulation, 2017 (for short, ‘the Regulation of 2017’), such reference
was rightly made. Referring to the Notification dated 11-6-2021, it
was pointed out that for food import clearance purposes, the customs
official of the rank of Superintendent at ICD, MIHAN had been
notified as the Authorised Officer. In view of this position, the CESTAT
was justified in holding the reference made to the Referral Laboratory
as unjustified. There was no reason to interfere with the order passed
by the Commissioner of Customs in this regard. The learned counsel
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Dineshchandra Jamnadas Gandhi Versus State of Gujarat and another
[(1989) 1 SCC 420] and the judgment of the Madras High Court in M.
Mohammed Versus Union of India[2016 (333) E.L.T. 39]. It was thus
submitted that the order passed by the CESTAT was liable to be set
aside and the appeal ought to be allowed.
