Packaged fruits labeling requirements: seizure unsustainable where notified goods carried the declarations required for that commodity class.

Packaged seedless dates, treated as repacked fruit packages under the notified standards regime, were found to fall within the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977. Because the labels already disclosed the essential particulars required for that class of goods, including net weight and retail price, absence of the manufacturer's name and address did not constitute a breach in the manner alleged. The purported violation of Section 39 and Rules 4, 6(1)(a) and 23(1) was therefore not established, and seizure on that basis could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether seedless dates marketed as repacked fruit packages were covered by the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, and whether the seizure was valid for want of the manufacturer's name and address on the packages.

Analysis: The package labels showed the product as repacked dates, with net weight and retail price declared. Dates are fruits, and the notification bringing fruits within the operation of the Act and Rules applied. In the case of fruit packages covered by the relevant schedule, declaration of the manufacturer's name and address was not required in the manner asserted by the respondents. The essential package particulars under the Rules were already disclosed, and the materials seized satisfied the applicable labeling requirements. On that basis, the alleged breach of Section 39 and Rules 4, 6(1)(a) and 23(1) was not made out.

Conclusion: The seizure was invalid and the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a commodity falls within the notified packaged commodities regime and the package bears the declarations required for that class of goods, seizure for absence of a further declaration not mandated for that commodity cannot be sustained.

---