Food safety clearance for imported areca nuts upheld where testing showed non-conformity with prescribed standards

Import clearance of areca nuts was examined under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 after testing under the Food Inspection Clearance System showed non-conformity with the prescribed food standards. The court treated the Food Safety and Standards regime as governing law following repeal of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and held that "food" under sections 3(j) and 3(zk) covers primary food within the statutory definition. It further found that the earlier Kerala decision on ungarbled betel-nuts, decided under the repealed statute, was not applicable on the present facts, especially where the bill of entry description bound the importer. The no objection certificate requirement was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs authority was justified in insisting on a no objection certificate from the food safety authority for import clearance of the consignment of areca nuts, and whether the earlier Kerala High Court decision on ungarbled betel-nuts under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act applied to the case.

Analysis: The consignment was subjected to testing pursuant to the importer's own application under the Food Inspection Clearance System, and both the notified laboratory and the referral laboratory recorded that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standards under clause 2.3.47(5) of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. The Court held that, after repeal of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by section 97(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the governing statute was the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Under section 3(j), food includes any processed, partially processed or unprocessed substance intended for human consumption, and section 3(zk) brings primary food within that definition. The Court further held that the Kerala decision was rendered under the repealed enactment, involved a case where the import was admittedly ungarbled betel-nuts, and therefore could not govern the present facts. The petitioner was also bound by the description in the bill of entry and could not rely on a later factual assertion inconsistent with it.

Conclusion: The insistence on the no objection certificate was upheld, and the challenge to the import clearance condition failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because the imported goods failed the statutory food standards and the cited precedent was held inapplicable under the current legal regime.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a consignment is found, on testing under the governing food safety regulations, not to conform to prescribed standards, and the earlier contrary precedent arises under a repealed statute with materially different definitions, clearance cannot be claimed as of right by invoking that precedent.

---