Judgment :- Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. This appeal is at the instance of a writ-petitioner and is directed against an order dated 11th March, 2011, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the said learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant. The case made out by the appellant in the writ-application, out of which the present appeal arises, may be summed up thus: a) The appellant has a unit of refining Crude Palm Oil and for manufacturing the Refined Palm Oil at Haldia as per specification prescribed under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The said unit of the appellant is registered with the Central Excise Authorities. The said unit of the appellant is capable of reducing the free fatty acid up to 0.25% by refining of the Crude Palm Oil. b) In the usual course of business, the appellant on December 23, 2010 purchased two consignments of Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade) from Indonesia. Those two consignments were shipped against the Bill of Lading dated December 15, 2010 and on December 22, 2010 the same arrived at the port of Haldia. c) The Crude Palm Oil being exempted from customs duty when imported for manufacture of refined oil, the appellant furnished a Bond, under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for the Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. d) On learning about the arrival of the said two consignments at the Port of Haldia, the appellant filed Bill of Entry dated December 23, 2010 for the clearance. The appellant declared full particulars of the shipping documents in the said Bill of Entry, which, inter alia, included the Pre-Shipment Certificate of weight and quality dated December 14, 2010. e) The appraising officers of Customs drew the samples from the consignments for testing purpose and withheld the clearance until further order after the discharge of the Cargo in the tanks situated in the unit of the appellant at Haldia. As a matter of fact, before the discharge of the said cargo into the tanks of factory, the appellant in writing dated 22nd December, 2010 applied for permission of customs for the same which was allowed. As a matter of fact, before the discharge of the said cargo into the tanks of factory, the appellant in writing dated 22nd December, 2010 applied for permission of customs for the same which was allowed. f) The samples from the imported consignments were drawn on January 4, 2011 by the customs authority and were forwarded to the University of Calcutta for test on the very same date. The University of Calcutta by its test report dated January 6, 2011 confirmed that the acid value was 9.77 in the sample. g) The samples of the said consignments were tested and retested by the Central Food Laboratory and the Central Food Laboratory issued a purported Test Report alleging that the samples did not conform to the standard of Palm Oil laid down under Item No.A.17.19 of Appendix-B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 on the ground that the acid value was higher than the prescribed limit, which is prescribed for Palm Oil as defined under the said A.17.19. h) According to the appellant, it has imported Crude Palm Oil and the same has neither been defined under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act nor is there any prescribed standard of Crude Palm Oil thereunder. i) The Authorized Officer (Haldia), Food Safety & Standard Authority of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, by its letters dated January 10, 2011 and January 24, 2011 informed the appellant that the samples did not conform to the standards laid down under PFA 1955 due to high acid value and hence, the NOC was not being issued to the Customs Authority for clearance. j) Hence, the writ-application was filed claiming the following relief: “a) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents, each of them, their subordinates and officers to act in accordance with law without discrimination and to allow the petitioner to process the imported consignment under Bill of Entry Nos. j) Hence, the writ-application was filed claiming the following relief: “a) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents, each of them, their subordinates and officers to act in accordance with law without discrimination and to allow the petitioner to process the imported consignment under Bill of Entry Nos. 2472693 and 2471923 dated 23rd December 2001 to conform the same to the standards laid down under PFA 1955 and upon such processing to permit the clearance thereof in such time and manner as may be permitted by the said Hon’ble Court; “b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari directing and commanding the respondents to transmit the records relating to the case to the said Hon’ble Court after certifying the same so that conscionable justice may be administered on the basis thereof; “c) Rule NISI in terms of prayers above; “d) Injunction restraining the Respondents and each of them their officers and subordinates from causing any delay or further delay in allowing the allowing the petitioner to process the imported consignment under Bill of Entry No.2471923 dated 23rd December 2010 to conform to the standards laid down under PFA 1955 and upon such processing in clearance thereof any further in any manner whatsoever; “e) ad-interim order in terms of prayer above; “f) Costs of and incidental to this application be paid to the petitioners by the respondents; “g) Such further and/or other order or orders be made and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon’ble Court may seem just and proper.” The aforesaid writ-application was opposed by the Customs Authority although no affidavit-in-opposition was given and the learned Single Judge by the order impugned has dismissed the said writ-application. According to the learned Single Judge, there is no provision of law which provides for processing of imported food before clearance to bring the same to conform to the prescribed standard and the imported food which is deemed to be adulterated or otherwise not in conformity with the standard prescribed by the PFA Rule, is either to be re-exported or destroyed. The learned Single Judge, thus, arrived at the conclusion that the consignments were not in conformity with the standard prescribed of PFA Rules. Being dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred. Mr. The learned Single Judge, thus, arrived at the conclusion that the consignments were not in conformity with the standard prescribed of PFA Rules. Being dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred. Mr. Banerjee, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has strongly contended before us that the learned Single Judge totally overlooked the fact that his client has imported Crude Palm Oil and the same has neither been defined under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act nor is there any prescribed standard of Crude Palm Oil thereunder and thus, the Customs Authority acted illegally in passing the order impugned and the learned Single Judge has also not appreciated the aforesaid aspect. Mr. Banerjee elaborates the aforesaid point thus: “The Object and Purpose of Laws relating to “Food” is that goods should not be permitted to come in the mainstream unless those are fit for human Consumption and the same should not affect the environment and health on consumption. Provisions concerning “Food” have also been made under the Customs Act with common intention to prevent import of adulterated food in to India and public health. Hence, both the said Laws call for harmonious construction. The standard of “edible oils” is under Appendix B Schedule A.17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and the respective standards of different edible oils are prescribed under Heading A.17.01 to A.17.26 thereunder. So far “Palm Oil” is concerned, the standard thereof is under Heading 17.19. The said Heading 17.19 has two parts, one speaks of Palm Oil which is edible oil and the standard thereof is laid down. The other part is imported Palm oil. The legislature has specifically excluded the imported palm oil from the 1st portion of 17.19 consciously, but in the proviso thereto provided intentionally that Palm Oil imported into the Country shall be refined before it is supplied for human consumption and the same shall conform to the Standards laid down under A.17.15. The standard under A.17.15 is of Refined Vegetable Oil i.e. Refined bleached and deodorized and the conditions stipulated thereunder are– (a) The name of vegetable oil from which the refined oil has been manufactured has to be clearly shown on the label of the container, and (b) The Standards prescribed under PFA Rules for the specified edible oils shall also apply except for Acid Value which shall not be more than 0.5. Accordingly, in terms of the said provisions under 17.15, it is ex-facie evident that the standards prescribed under the said rules i.e. under Schedule 17.A and Subheadings A.17.01 to A.17.26 are for “edible oils” and that after manufacture of edible oil the requirement of packaging and labeling are also mandatory. In other words, the overall reading of A.17.19 will go to show that the imported Palm Oil has necessarily to be refined to conform to the Standards under 17.15 and 17.19 except with regard to Acid Value to be not more than 0.5 before the same can be sold for human consumption. So far the Customs Law is concerned, the Government has always been and still is fully conscious of the provisions of the PFA Act, 1954 and the PFA Rules, 1955 and has put the Supplementary Note-1 under Chapter 15 of the Customs Tariff Act , 1975 to the effect the following;- “In this Chapter, “edible grade”, in respect of goods (i.e. edible oils) specified in Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955, means the Standard of quality specified for such goods in that Appendix.” The said standard of Edible Oils under PFA Rules not only prescribed the standards but also defines the meaning of respective edible oils. As will be evident from A.17.19 of the PFA Rules, the Palm Oil has been defined as follows:- “17.19 –Palm Oil, means the oil obtained from freshly mesocarp of fruits of the oil palm (Elaeis Guineensis) tree by the method of expression or solvent extraction. It shall be clear, free from rancidity, suspended or other foreign matter, separated water, added colouring and flavouring substances or mineral oil.1 [However it may contain food additives permitted in these rules and Appendix C.] In spite of having been fully conscious of the definition of Palm Oil under PFA Rules, the Government issued Notification No.21/2002 dated 1st March, 2002 as amended putting Palm Oil under Tariff Heading 15.11 under Serial No.29 of the said Notification which is for edible oil and carved out there from “Crude Palm Oil(Edible Grade)” to put the same under serial No.30 of the said Notification with Specific definition and Standard of “Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade)”, imposing condition that import of Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade) will be permitted only for manufacture of edible oil etc. In any event, if it is held that the Heading 17.19 is for Crude Palm Oil in that event it is evident by implication the said standard under Heading 17.19 has been superseded by the Central Government by issuing Notification No.120/2003 dated 01.08.2003) (Page 138 of the petition) and further by Notification No.91/2007-Cus dated 02.08.2007 (Copy enclosed Annexure-21, page nos.197 to 198) in exercise of power under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 by regulating import of Crude Palm Oil of description specified under the said Notifications. Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade) was defined for the first time under Customs Notification No.120/2003-Cus dated 1st August, 2003 and the same was brought under Serial No.30 the Notification No.21/2002 by another Notification being No.91/2007 dated 2nd August, 2007. Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade) has neither been defined nor any standard thereof has been prescribed under the PFA Rules or any Appendix or Schedule thereof. Under Customs Laws (Notification 21/2002-Cus dated 1st March 2002 as amended) provides that import of Crude Palm Oil having Acid Value of 4 and above would be permitted import for refining the same and the PFA Rules provides that the refined oil manufactured out of imported Palm Oil has to meet the Standard of edible oil prescribed under 17.15 and 17.19 except in respect of Acid value which should not be more than 0.5. It is pertinent to mention that it is unlikely that the Government would define “Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade) and prescribe the Standard thereof under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 or any other law relating to Food in force for the time being. The Government while issuing and/or amending Notification No.21/2002 could have adopted the definition as contained under PFA Rules but instead has given a specific definition. The Government has consciously prescribed specific definition of Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade) under Notification No. 21/2002(amended) to carve out the same from the definition of Palm Oil under 17.19 of PFA Rules. Inconsistency between the Customs Tariff Act and the PFA Act/Rules can not be allowed to persist by the Government. The Government has consciously prescribed specific definition of Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade) under Notification No. 21/2002(amended) to carve out the same from the definition of Palm Oil under 17.19 of PFA Rules. Inconsistency between the Customs Tariff Act and the PFA Act/Rules can not be allowed to persist by the Government. The Harmonious reading of the said two sets of laws/provisions will show that Government has permitted import of Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade) having Acid Value 4 and Above without any limit on higher side knowing fully well that Imported Palm Oil could not be sold in India for home consumption unless refined and before it Conforms to the standard under Heading A.17.15 of the PFA Rules, 1955. Accordingly, the clearance of the subject consignment shall not result into the entry of any adulterated food in the mainstream. In spite of being conscious and aware of the definition and standard of Palm oil prescribed under the PFA Rules, 1955 the Government by Notification has permitted import of Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade) with Acid Value 4 and above with no limit on higher side. Under PFA Act, 1954 and PFA Rules, 1955 the Government has intentionally neither defined the “Crude Palm Oil(Edible Grade)” nor prescribed any standard thereof as it has been known to the Government that Crude Palm Oil having Acid Value 4 and above is not edible oil as such. In the present case it is not the case of any authority/Respondents that the Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade) imported by the petitioner is edible as such or the same is meant for sale before refining. It is also not in dispute that in the unit of the petitioner the said imported Crude Palm Oil would be made edible oil of the Standard 17.15 with acid value not mere than 0.5. It is pertinent hereto to mention that the Acid value is the measure of “free fatty acid” in crude oil and by refining free fatty acid can be removed by use of alkali from 30% to 0.5 of less than 0.5 as will be evident from Board Circular 29/97 dated 31st July, 1997 and 40/2001 dated 31 July, 2001 (page 129 and page 127 para of the petition 3). The unit of the petitioner is capable of bringing down the Acid value from 15% to less than 0.5% as will be evident from the Certificate of Plant manufacturer (at page 45 of the Petition). In the preamble of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 it is admitted by the Central Government that the standard prescribed under the different food laws are creating confusion and that the standards are often rigid and non–responsive to scientific advancements and modernization, which is detrimental to the growth of the nascent food processing industry and is not conducive to effect fixation of food standards and their enforcement. (Copy enclosed Annexure-2 page nos. 40 to 41 of the written notes) The Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 has been enacted to consolidate all laws on food and to repeal, inter alia, The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 as also the Solvent Extracted Oil, De Oiled Meal, and Edible Flour (Control) order, 1967. No standard of any edible oil or crude oil has yet been laid down under the FSS Act, 2006 as yet. There is no standard of Crude Palm Oil laid down in any of the Food Laws of the land. Provisions made under Section 30 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 provides for survey of the Industrial units, by the Commissioner of Food Safety of the State, engaged in the manufacture or processing of food in the State to find out compliance by such units of the Standards notified by the Food Authority for various articles of food and to sanction prosecution under the said Act. The provision made under Section 47(5) of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 will be applicable after the imported Crude Palm Oil is refined. The object of all Food Laws is that no adulterated Food comes in the main steam and not to prevent import of raw materials for manufacture of edible food for human consumption conforming to the standard thereof prescribed under Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006. There is no dispute that the imported Crude Oil is having the requisite Acid value more than 4 and the same conforms to the Standard prescribed under Notification 21/2002 – Cus dated 1st March, 2002 (As Amended) in all respect. There is no dispute that the imported Crude Oil is having the requisite Acid value more than 4 and the same conforms to the Standard prescribed under Notification 21/2002 – Cus dated 1st March, 2002 (As Amended) in all respect. Accordingly the same could not be termed as Prohibited goods as the import thereof has been consciously permitted by Customs Laws Knowing fully well that the provisions of the PFA Act and PFA Rules are meant for edible oil. No prejudice will be caused in clearance of the same by the Customs to any concern whomsoever in as much as on refining if the same is found not conforming to the standard prescribed under 17.19 the same shall become prohibited Goods in terms of Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962 and be liable to Confiscation. In such an event the petitioner will suffer huge loss on account of costs, duty, penalty and interest. The Customs has referred to various Circulars which relates to edible food/Article. The Circular have no bearing to the present case in as much as imported Palm Oil has not yet become edible food/Article. In any event the said Circulars have no force of Law. The said Circulars are not binding on this Hon’ble Court. The departmental instruction under the said Circular has no bearing to the present case The Central Government is empowered to prohibit, restrict or otherwise regulate import of articles of food under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation)Act, 1992 and lay down its own Standard thereof .” Mr. Banerjee, therefore, prays for setting aside the order impugned and for directing the Customs Authority to clear the goods not as a food but as crude palm oil for further purification to make it in conformity with the standard of edible oil as provided under the PFA Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Mr. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Customs Authority, has, on the other hand, opposed the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Banerjee and has supported the order passed by the Customs Authority and the learned Single Judge. According to Mr. Bharadwaj, the appellant had imported crude palm oil of edible grade and filed the bill of entry as prescribed under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the proper officer for clearance of goods for home consumption as prescribed under Section 47 of the said Act. According to Mr. Bharadwaj, the appellant had imported crude palm oil of edible grade and filed the bill of entry as prescribed under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the proper officer for clearance of goods for home consumption as prescribed under Section 47 of the said Act. The description of the goods as per bill of entry dated 23rd December, 2010 (page 85 of the application) is as follows – Tariff Item No. “15111000 CRUDE PALM OIL (EDIBLE GRADE) IN BULK (CAROTENE CONTENTS 250 – 2500) ACID VALUE 4 – 10”. Mr. Bharadwaj points out that according to Chapter 15 of Section III of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the rate of duty of crude palm oil (edible grade) is as follows:- Table Mr. Bharadwaj further submits that the Supplementary Notes to Chapter 15 of Section III of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 specifies that – “1. In this Chapter, “edible grade”, in respect of goods (i.e. edible oil) specified in Appendix B to the Prevention of Foods Adulteration Rules, 1955, means the standard of quality specified for such goods in that Appendix.” Thus, Mr. Bharadwaj proceeds, crude palm oil of edible grade under the Customs Tariff 1511 10 00 means crude palm oil (edible grade) as per specified standard prescribed in the Prevention of Foods Adulteration Rules, 1955. By referring to Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 providing for clearance of goods for home consumption Mr. Bharadwaj submits that where the proper officer is satisfied that any goods entered for home consumption are not prohibited goods and the importer has paid the import duty, if any, assessed thereon and any charges payable under the said Act in respect of the same, the proper officer is entitled to make an order permitting clearance of the goods for home consumption. Thus, according to Mr. Bharadwaj, the two pre-conditions are (1) the proper officer should be satisfied that the goods entered for home consumption are not prohibited goods and (2) the importer has paid the import duty and any other charges payable under this Act. The importer who has presented the bill of entry before the proper officer for home consumption of goods, according to Mr. The importer who has presented the bill of entry before the proper officer for home consumption of goods, according to Mr. Bharadwaj, has to produce relevant declaration along with his bill of entry that the imported goods are not prohibited goods and the proper officer has to satisfy himself that the goods which has entered into the country for home consumption are not prohibited goods. If the proper officer is satisfied in this respect, then he shall send the bill of entry to the assessing officer for assessing the duty of goods as prescribed under Section 17 of the Customs Act. After assessment, if the proper officer is satisfied that the importer has paid the import duty, if any, assessed thereon and any charges payable under this Act in respect of the same, the proper officer shall make an order permitting clearance of the goods for home consumption. Therefore, according to Mr. Bharadwaj, if the proper officer finds that the goods are prohibited goods he will not refer the matter to the assessing officer to initiate the proceeding for assessment of the imported goods. Mr. Bharadwaj, in this connection, refers to the provisions contained in Section 2 (33) of the Customs Act defining “prohibited goods” to mean any goods the import or export of which is subject to any prohibition under this Act or any other law for the time being in force but does not include any such goods in respect of which the conditions subject to which the goods are permitted to be imported or exported have been complied with and according to Mr. Bharadwaj, the goods in question clearly come within that prohibition. Mr. Bharadwaj, the goods in question clearly come within that prohibition. Mr. Bharadwaj, in this connection also refers to the provisions contained in Section 11A (a) of the Customs Act according to which “illegal import” means the import of any goods in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force and contends that in this case, when the bill of import was produced before the proper officer, the proper officer found that the import is crude palm oil edible grade and the importer has also declared in his bill of entry that the acid value is 4 – 10 (the acid value as declared in the bill of entry is more than 4 as the importer wants to enjoy the benefit of exemption at the time assessment and acid value not more than 10 as the importer is aware that he has to maintain the standard as prescribed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006). The proper officer identified the goods as “food” as prescribed under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. By referring to the provisions contained in Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Mr. Bharadwaj submits that “food” means any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and includes primary food, to the extent defined in clause (ZK) genetically modified or engineered food or food containing such ingredients, infant food, packaged drinking water, alcoholic drink, chewing gum, and any substance, including water used into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment but does not include any animal feed, live animals unless they are prepared or processed for placing on the market for human consumption, plants prior to harvesting, drugs and medicinal products, cosmetics, narcotic or psychotropic substances as well as other articles as the Central Government may declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of this Act having regards to its use, nature, substance or quality. Mr. Mr. Bharadwaj contends that the crude palm oil of edible grade being an item of food as defined under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the proper officer under the Customs Act has to obtain a certificate from the authorized officer under the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India as prescribed in Section 25 read with Section 47(5) of the of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 for clearance of imported goods and thus, the authorized officer collected the samples of the imported crude oil for testing to verify whether the crude oil (edible grade) which is imported for processing and refining into refined vegetable oil conforms to the standard as prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and consequently, the authorized officer followed the rules and standards as prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as no rules and standards has been formulated yet under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. In this connection, Mr. Bharadwaj strongly relies upon Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules which is quoted below: “Rule 5. Standards of quality of the various articles of food specified in Appendices B, C and D to these rules are as defined in those Appendices. Appendix B A.17.15 – Refined Vegetable oil means any vegetable oil which is obtained by expression or solvent extraction of vegetable oil bearing materials, deacidified with alkali and / or physical refining and / or by miscellane refining using permitted food grade solvents followed by bleaching with absorbent earth and / or carbon and deodourised with steam. No other chemical agent shall be used. The name of the vegetable oil from which the refined oil has been manufactured shall be clearly specified on the label of the container. In addition to the under-mentioned standards to which refined vegetable oils shall conform to the standards prescribed in these rules for the specified edible oils shall also apply except for acid value which shall not more than 0.5. Moisture shall not exceed 0.10 per cent by weight. A.17.19 – Palm oil means the oil obtained from fleshy mesocarp of fruits of the oil palm (Elaeis Guineensis) tree by the method of expression or solvent extraction. It shall be clear, free from rancidity, suspended or other foreign matter, separated water, added colouring or flavouring substances or mineral oil. Moisture shall not exceed 0.10 per cent by weight. A.17.19 – Palm oil means the oil obtained from fleshy mesocarp of fruits of the oil palm (Elaeis Guineensis) tree by the method of expression or solvent extraction. It shall be clear, free from rancidity, suspended or other foreign matter, separated water, added colouring or flavouring substances or mineral oil. It shall conform to the following standards, namely: (a) Butyro-refractometer reading at 50ºC 35.5 – 44.0 OR Refractive Index at 50ºC 1.4491-1.4552 (b) Melting point 9 capillary slip method) Not more than 37ºC (c) Iodine value (Wijs method) 45 – 46 (d) Saponification value 195 – 205 (e) Unsaponifiable matter Not more than 1.2per cent (f) Acid value Not more than 10.0 Indigenously produced Raw Palm Oil obtained by method of expression may be supplied for human consumption as such provided acid value is not more than 6.0. But palm oil imported into the country or produced by solvent extraction shall be refined before it is supplied for human consumption and it shall conform to the standards laid down under A.17.15. Additionally, it shall have Flash Point (Penske-Marten closed method) – Not less than 250ºC. Test for argemone oil shall be negative. In this connection, Mr. Bharadwaj also relied upon A.17.19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 which states that palm oil imported into the country or produced by solvent extraction shall be refined before it is supplied for human consumption and it shall conform to the standards laid down under A.17.15. Thus, according to Mr. Bharadwaj, the standard prescribed in A.17.19 is nothing but for crude palm oil (edible grade) and it has to be processed for direct human consumption and the acid value has to be reduced to 0.50 as laid down in A.17.15 from acid value “not more than 10.” i.e. the standard prescribed in A.17.19. Mr. Bharadwaj submits that in this case, the Authorized Officer, (Haldia Sea Port), Food Safety & Standards Authority of India, issued the first certificate dated 10th January, 2011, (at page no. Mr. Bharadwaj submits that in this case, the Authorized Officer, (Haldia Sea Port), Food Safety & Standards Authority of India, issued the first certificate dated 10th January, 2011, (at page no. 109 of the application,) stating that “It is to inform to you that the Crude palm Oil sample collected on 04.01.2011 by the official of the Authorized Officer, (Haldia Sea Port) from the import consignment vide Bill of Entry Number – 2471693 dated 23.12.2010 is found failed to conform the PFA specification due to High Acid Value (10.96 against the maximum permissible limit of 10.00). This is based on the laboratory received from the authorized laboratory concerned”. Mr. Bharadwaj submits that as the certificate issued by the authorized officer showed that palm oil edible grade does not conform to the standard prescribed under Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the crude palm oil (edible grade) becomes prohibited goods under the Customs Act and cannot be cleared by the proper officer under Section 47 of the said Act. Mr. Bharadwaj points out that by his letter dated 15th January, 2011, the importer requested the authorized officer for retesting the sample and as the Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata being the appellate authority, the second test was done from the Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata and this time also, the sample was found to be not in conformity with the specification laid down in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules due to high acid value (Higher than the permissible limit). (The certificate is annexed at page 110 and the test report is annexed from page 111 to 113 of the application.) Mr. Bharadwaj asserts that as the importer failed to receive “no objection certificate” from the authorized officer (Haldia Sea Port), which is mandatory compliance requirement for not treating the item to be prohibited goods (as referred in page 105 of the application), the proper officer could not clear the goods as the imported crude palm oil (edible grade) which is raw material for refined vegetable oil treating the item as prohibited goods as referred in Section 2(33) of the Customs Act and the import an illegal import under Section 11A of the Customs Act. Mr. Mr. Bharadwaj admits that the appellant has taken registration under the Customs Act for import of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods (at page 46 of the application) and has imported goods (crude palm oil edible grade) to be used in the manufacture of excisable goods (refined vegetable oil). According to Mr. Bharadwaj, generally, an importer cannot avail himself of the benefit of an exemption and is required to pay duty as specified in Chapter 15 of Customs Tariff Act and only a manufacturer of excisable goods can avail concessional rate of customs duty as specified in Notification No. 36/96- Cus. (N.T.) dated 23.07.1996. In this connection, Mr. Bharadwaj relies upon Rule 2 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 which is quoted below: “2. Application - (1) These rules shall apply to an importer who intends to avail the benefit of an exemption notification issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 and where the benefit of such exemption is dependent upon the use of imported goods covered by the notification for the manufacture of any excisable commodity.” Mr. Bharadwaj submits that in order to avail such exemption, the importer/manufacturer has to comply with the conditions as prescribed in the relevant exemption notification. The crude palm oil (edible grade) falling under Tariff Item No.1511 of the Customs Tariff Act will get an exemption under the General Exemption No.122 of the Customs Tariff Act if the description of the said item conforms to the description as specified in the chart provided with the General Exemption No.122 under the heading Description of Goods – Table Thus, Mr. Bharadwaj submits, to avail of the benefit of exception under the Customs Tariff Act, the importer / manufacturer has to fulfil two conditions. The Crude palm oil falling under heading 1511, having an acid value of 4 or more and total carotenoid (as beta carotene) in the range of 250 mg/kg. to 2500 mg/kg., in loose or bulk form for manufacture of refined oil, refined palmolein, vanaspati, bakery shortening or inter-esterified fats. It is not out of place of mention that these specifications are not the standard specified under The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Mr. to 2500 mg/kg., in loose or bulk form for manufacture of refined oil, refined palmolein, vanaspati, bakery shortening or inter-esterified fats. It is not out of place of mention that these specifications are not the standard specified under The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Mr. Bharadwaj, in this connection, relies upon Section 47 of the Customs Act which prescribes that if the proper officer is satisfied that the imported goods are not prohibited goods then he will refer the matter to the assessing officer for assessment of duty. Section 17 of the Customs Act speaks of – “Assessment of Duty. - (1) After an importer has entered any imported goods under Section 46 or an exporter has entered any export goods under section 50 the imported goods or the export goods, as the case may be, or such part thereof as may be necessary may, without undue delay, be examined and tested by the proper officer. (2) After such examination and testing, the duty, if any, leviable on such goods shall, save and otherwise provided in Section 85, be assessed.” Mr. Bharadwaj points out that in this case on 23rd December, 2010 the proper officer before whom the bill of entry was placed for clearance of crude palm oil (edible grade), directed the appraiser (assessing officer) to collect sample for test of carotene and acid value as in the bill of entry the carotene has been shown as 250 – 2500 and acid value 4 – 10 which indicates that the importer has brought crude palm oil (edible grade) and is claiming exemption of customs duty. The proper officer directed the assessing officer to collect the samples simultaneously for testing as prescribed in the Customs Act for grant of exemption and requested the authorized officer under Food Safety and Standard Act to collect sample and to give a no objection certificate which is mandatory requirement as crude palm oil edible grade is a food item and the above certificate is required to establish that the goods are not prohibited goods. The assessing officer before assessment of duty had sent the sample to the Assistant Professor, Department of Chemical Technology, University of Calcutta being an authorized laboratory (at page no. 114 of the application) for testing total carotene content and acid value. The result of this test is as follows – “Total carotene content (as beta carotene): 426.85 mg/Kg. The assessing officer before assessment of duty had sent the sample to the Assistant Professor, Department of Chemical Technology, University of Calcutta being an authorized laboratory (at page no. 114 of the application) for testing total carotene content and acid value. The result of this test is as follows – “Total carotene content (as beta carotene): 426.85 mg/Kg. Acid value: 9.93” However, according to Mr. Bharadwaj, the assessing officer could not initiate the assessment proceedings and could not look into this report as the proper officer failed to direct him to initiate assessment proceedings as the no objection certificate to be issued by the authorized officer under the Food Safety and Standards Act was not in his hand and till the proper officer was satisfied that the goods were not prohibited goods, he could not direct the assessing officer to initiate assessment proceedings. Circular No. 58/2001, dated 25-10-2001 and Circular: 28/2006 - Cus. Dated 6th November, 2006 provide guidelines for examination, testing and clearance of food items prior to Customs clearance and those Circulars provide that all the consignments of edible / food products which fail PHO testing shall be re-exported or destroyed. Mr. Bharadwaj submits that in this case, the proper officer of customs after considering the Customs Act, 1962, the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 relevant rules and circulars together, and has come to a conclusion that importation of crude palm oil (edible grade) is bad as the said goods is a prohibited goods as per Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962. Mr. Bharadwaj, in this connection relied upon the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of International Airports Authority –Vs.- Grand Slam International of India reported in 1995(77) ELT 753 (S.C) in support of his above contentions: “ Legislations, rules or regulations are enacted to regulate the day to day activities. Mr. Bharadwaj, in this connection relied upon the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of International Airports Authority –Vs.- Grand Slam International of India reported in 1995(77) ELT 753 (S.C) in support of his above contentions: “ Legislations, rules or regulations are enacted to regulate the day to day activities. But they cannot be exhaustive and the practical difficulties arising in working out these have to be resolved by developing principles by the court which are justice oriented , serve public purpose and promote social interest, of course, without doing violence to the language of the Section and the objective of enactment and if the provision was enacted to remedy any event, then to construe it in a manner in which it may carry out the objective of the enactment which was intended to suppress the mischief. The Notice appears to have been issued in the first instance to mitigate which was intended to be remedied. Apart from that the court’s duty while construing two provisions covering the same field is to harmonise the two provisions in such a manner that none of them are rendered otiose. But that would be the result if sub-paragraph (vii) is ignored. The duty of the court is to effectuate the social purpose by resorting to such construction as is beneficial and does not cause harm to any one or is rendered self-defecting. How such construction shall be self defeating shall be explained later.” Mr. Bharadwaj, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal. Mr. Somnath Bose, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 has adopted the submissions of Mr. Bharadwaj and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, the principal question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the Palm oil sought to be imported by the appellant was a prohibited goods within the meaning of the Customs Act. It appears that the appellant had imported crude palm oil of edible grade and filed the bill of entry as prescribed under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the proper officer for clearance of goods for home consumption as prescribed under Section 47 of the said Act. It appears that the appellant had imported crude palm oil of edible grade and filed the bill of entry as prescribed under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the proper officer for clearance of goods for home consumption as prescribed under Section 47 of the said Act. The description of the goods as per bill of entry dated 23rd December, 2010 (page 85 of the application) is as follows – Tariff Item No. “15111000 CRUDE PALM OIL (EDIBLE GRADE) IN BULK (CAROTENE CONTENTS 250 – 2500) ACID VALUE 4 – 10”. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. V. M. Salgaoncar and Bros. (P) Ltd., reported in AIR 1998 SC 1367 , the word "consumption" may involve in the narrow sense using the article to such an extent as to reach the stage of its non-existence. But the word "consumption" in fiscal law need not be confined to such a narrow meaning. It has a wider meaning in which any sort of utilization of the commodity would as well amount to consumption of the article, albeit that article retaining its identity even after its use. In the context in which the expression "home consumption" is used in S. 46 of the Customs Act it does not warrant a construction that the commodity should have been completely used up. Even putting the commodity to any type of utility within the territory of India will tantamount to "home consumption". Thus, if the intention of the appellant is to use the crude palm oil as refined vegetable oil after further refining the same, the declaration in the bill of entry for home consumption did not reflect any wrong declaration. According to Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, the phrase “prohibited goods” means any goods the import or export of which is subject to any prohibition under this Act or any other law for the time being in force but does not include any such goods in respect of which the conditions subject to which the goods are permitted to be imported or exported have been complied with. Mr. Mr. Bharadwaj, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent could not place before us any material which has the force of law to suggest that import of crude palm oil (edible grade) is prohibited by law or is subject to any further conditions which has not been complied with. All that he submitted was that the same should be treated to be a “food” within the meaning of Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and as such, the proper officer under the Customs Act was required to obtain a certificate from the authorized officer under the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India as prescribed in Section 25 read with Section 47(5) of the of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 for clearance of imported goods and as the acid contents of the imported goods is above 0.5%, the same should be treated to be prohibited goods. We agree with Mr. Bharadwaj that as no rules and standards has been formulated yet under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the rules and standards as prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 for use of palm oil as edible oil for human consumption should be followed. In this connection, we may profitably refer to the provisions contained in Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules which is quoted below: “Rule 5. Standards of quality of the various articles of food specified in Appendices B, C and D to these rules are as defined in those Appendices.” Appendix B is quoted below: “A.17.15 – Refined Vegetable oil means any vegetable oil which is obtained by expression or solvent extraction of vegetable oil bearing materials, deacidified with alkali and / or physical refining and / or by miscellane refining using permitted food grade solvents followed by bleaching with absorbent earth and / or carbon and deodourised with steam. No other chemical agent shall be used. The name of the vegetable oil from which the refined oil has been manufactured shall be clearly specified on the label of the container. In addition to the under-mentioned standards to which refined vegetable oils shall conform to the standards prescribed in these rules for the specified edible oils shall also apply except for acid value which shall not more than 0.5. Moisture shall not exceed 0.10 per cent by weight. In addition to the under-mentioned standards to which refined vegetable oils shall conform to the standards prescribed in these rules for the specified edible oils shall also apply except for acid value which shall not more than 0.5. Moisture shall not exceed 0.10 per cent by weight. A.17.19 – Palm oil means the oil obtained from fleshy mesocarp of fruits of the oil palm (Elaeis Guineensis) tree by the method of expression or solvent extraction. It shall be clear, free from rancidity, suspended or other foreign matter, separated water, added colouring or flavouring substances or mineral oil. It shall conform to the following standards, namely: (a) Butyro-refractometer reading at 50ºC 35.5 – 44.0 OR Refractive Index at 50ºC 1.4491-1.4552 (b) Melting point 9capillary slip method)1 Not more than 37ºC (c) Iodine value (Wijs method) 45 – 46 (d) Saponification value 195 – 205 (e) Unsaponifiable matter Not more than 1.2per cent (f) Acid value Not more than 10.0 Indigenously produced Raw Palm Oil obtained by method of expression may be supplied for human consumption as such provided acid value is not more than 6.0. But palm oil imported into the country or produced by solvent extraction shall be refined before it is supplied for human consumption and it shall conform to the standards laid down under A.17.15. Additionally, it shall have Flash Point (Penske-Marten closed method) – Not less than 250ºC. Test for argemone oil shall be negative.” (Emphasis supplied by us). The appendix B quoted above makes it abundantly clear that import of crude palm oil when the acid contents is more than 0.5% is not prohibited by itself but if the same is intended to be used as edible vegetable oil for human consumption, the requirement quoted above must be satisfied. In the bill of entry submitted by the appellant the goods has not been declared as a “food” item but as Tariff Item No. “15111000 CRUDE PALM OIL (EDIBLE GRADE) IN BULK (CAROTENE CONTENTS 250 – 2500) ACID VALUE 4 – 10” thus, specifically indicating that the same is unfit for human consumption as refined vegetable oil as the acid contents is far above 0.5%. Therefore, it is not a case where the appellant falsely declared the goods as refined vegetable oil and consequently, a food within the meaning of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, but was found to be unfit as a food. Therefore, it is not a case where the appellant falsely declared the goods as refined vegetable oil and consequently, a food within the meaning of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, but was found to be unfit as a food. On the face of the declaration that the same was crude palm oil intended to be converted into edible grade and that as it then stood, it did not conform to the standard of edible vegetable oil, it cannot be legitimately contended that such item became a prohibited goods within the meaning of the Customs Act. As appearing from Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules quoted above, under the heading A 17.19, the importation of crude palm oil is not prohibited but palm oil imported into the country or produced by solvent extraction shall be refined before it is supplied for human consumption and it shall conform to the standards laid down under A.17.15. Additionally, it shall have Flash Point (Penske-Marten closed method) – Not less than 250ºC and the test for argemone oil shall be negative. We, therefore, find that the imported goods was not a prohibited item for import nor was the same imported as a food within the meaning of the Act of 2006. The Appendix B to the Prevention of Foods Adulteration Rules, 1955 quoted above itself permits import of palm oil having more than 0.5% acid contents but puts restriction for further purification if intended to be used as vegetable edible oil, an item of food within the meaning of the Act of 2006. If we accept the contention of Mr. Bharadwaj that import of crude palm oil having more than 0.5% acid contents make it a prohibited goods, the aforesaid observations in the Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules becomes redundant. Even if we look at the definition of food contained in Section 3 (j) of the Act of 2006, the declaration in the bill of entry did not claim it to be a food within the meaning of the said Act. Even if we look at the definition of food contained in Section 3 (j) of the Act of 2006, the declaration in the bill of entry did not claim it to be a food within the meaning of the said Act. The definition is quoted below: “j) “food” means any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and includes primary food to the extent defined in clause (zk), genetically modified or engineered food or food containing such ingredients, infant food, packaged drinking water, alcoholic drink, chewing gum, and any substance, including water used into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment but does not include any animal feed, live animals unless they are prepared or processed for placing on the market for human consumption, plants prior to harvesting, drugs and medicinal products, cosmetics, narcotic or psychotropic substances: Provided that the Central Government may declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, any other article as food for the purposes of this Act having regards to its use, nature, substance or quality;” (Emphasis supplied by us). Thus, unless the item is intended to be used for human consumption the same at any rate cannot come within the definition of the food. No material has been placed before us indicating the intention of the appellant to use the imported item in that very form for human consumption. We, therefore, find that the Customs Authority illegally refused to assess the duty on the item on the wrong assumption that the same was prohibited goods under the Customs Act. Regarding the allegation that the acid contents in the goods was more than what was declared in the bill of entry, we find that in the first report given by the Calcutta University, the competent authority under the Act of 2006 after testing, the same has been mentioned to be within the declared limit but subsequently in the next two tests done by the Customs Authority after the lapse of some days, the acid contents increased further. Be that as it may, even if the acid contents is found to be slight more than 10% which was the maximum acid contents declared in the bill of entry, for that reason the duty may vary but the goods will not become a prohibited goods because there is even no bar of importing crude palm oil having more than 10% acid contents if the same is not intended to be used for human consumption without further purification. If the imported goods is used as food without further processing after removing the same to the custody of the importer, the provisions contained in the Act of 2006 would be applicable by the appropriate authority under the said Act in accordance therewith but the Customs Authority will have nothing to do unless the importer has declared the item as one intended for immediate use for human consumption in the same form and the same is on examination found to be not in conformity with the guidelines given in the Act of 2006. In the case of International Airport Authority (supra), relied upon by Mr. Bharadwaj, the Customs Department had issued detention certificate and informed International Airport Authority of India (“IAAI”) and Central Warehousing Corporation (“CWC”) that no demurrage might be charged for the period during which the goods were in custody of IAAI or the CWC due to pendency of adjudication proceedings. But the IAAI or the CWC instead of treating entire period as free period granted rebate and calculated demurrage in accordance with the Rate Schedule framed by them. The amount of demurrage in each case came to be two or three times more than the value of the goods, and therefore, the respondents approached the High Court by way of writ-petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitions were allowed and it was held that the IAAI or the CWC being custodian of the Customs Department could not ignore the detention certificate, therefore, no demurrage could be charged for the period the proceedings were pending. The High Court relied on Trishul Impex v. Union of India reported in (1991) 43 DLT 528. This decision in its turn relied on an earlier decision given in Trans Asia Carpets v. Union of India (CCP no.97 of 1987). The High Court relied on Trishul Impex v. Union of India reported in (1991) 43 DLT 528. This decision in its turn relied on an earlier decision given in Trans Asia Carpets v. Union of India (CCP no.97 of 1987). The decision in Trans Asia proceeded on the basis that Airports Authority being an agent of the Collector of Customs was bound by the detention certificate granted by the Collector of Customs. In Trishul Impex, it was held that the container depot where the goods were deposited being the custodian for Customs Authorities, it was bound by the certificate and was liable to release the goods without any demurrage. The aforesaid decisions of the High Courts were the subject-matter of the cases before the Supreme Court. In the above context, R. M. Sahai, J. while delivering minority judgment dissenting from the view taken by the Majority made the observations relied upon by Mr. Bharadwaj. The aforesaid view therefore cannot be said to be a precedent. At any rate, in our case, there is no conflict with any provision of the Customs Act with that provided in the Act of 2006 and the field of operation is also different except in cases where a food item is sought to be imported which on the face of declaration is intended for immediate use as food for human consumption and in such a case, the Customs Authority has right to verify whether the imported goods is in conformity with the standard laid down in the Act of 2006 and if not, to declare the goods as a prohibitive item. In the case before us, the imported goods is not for immediate use as a food item as declared and thus, the observations relied upon by Mr. Bharadwaj does not help his client in any way. We, thus, direct the Customs Authority not to treat the goods as prohibited goods and to assess the duty and pass appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act within a month from today and to release the same if the order passed by the Customs Authority is complied with. We also restrain the appellant from utilizing the imported goods as food within the meaning of the Act of 2006 without complying with the requirement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The Mandamus-Appeal is, thus, allowed. We also restrain the appellant from utilizing the imported goods as food within the meaning of the Act of 2006 without complying with the requirement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The Mandamus-Appeal is, thus, allowed. The order impugned is set aside and the writ-application is disposed of in terms of our above direction. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. I agree. Later: In view of our above order, the other appeal being APOT 146 of 2011 (G.A.1168 of 2011, W.P.165 of 2011) (Mihijam Vanaspati Limited versus Union of India) which involves the selfsame point and was also heard along with the present appeal, stands disposed of in terms of the directions contained in this order. Let a Photostat certified copy of this judgment be made available to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.