Mandatory food labelling compliance prevents clearance of imported edible oils where required declarations and particulars are missing.

Mandatory food labelling requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Packaging and Labelling Regulations, 2011 were held to require strict compliance. Imported edible oils were found non-compliant because they lacked required particulars, including the correct food name and statutory declarations, and carried labels such as "No Cholesterol" and "No Trans Fat" without the prescribed disclosures. The alleged defects were not treated as curable by unilateral relabelling or sticker affixation by the importer. Prior permissions and earlier NOCs granted in other cases did not create a right to clearance contrary to the regulations, and could not justify repetition of illegality.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported food articles suffered from labelling deficiencies under the applicable food safety regulations; (ii) whether any such deficiencies were rectifiable by the importer through replacement or pasting of labels; and (iii) whether prior permissions or earlier NOCs granted to other importers entitled the importer to clearance despite non-compliance.

Issue (i): Whether the imported food articles suffered from labelling deficiencies under the applicable food safety regulations.

Analysis: The label requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 were treated as mandatory. The labels on the imported oils did not disclose the food name in the required form, did not comply with ingredient and declaration requirements, and carried expressions such as "No Cholesterol" and "No Trans Fat" without the required statutory declarations. The absence of the expression "Blended Edible Vegetable Oil" and other required particulars in the blended oil labels also constituted non-compliance.

Conclusion: The imported articles did suffer from real and material labelling deficiencies.

Issue (ii): Whether any such deficiencies were rectifiable by the importer through replacement or pasting of labels.

Analysis: The statutory scheme placed responsibility for proper labelling on the manufacturer and required strict compliance with the regulations. The deficiencies found were not treated as curable by unilateral sticker affixation or relabelling by the importer, and no legal basis was found for the Court to direct such rectification in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Court held that what the law did not permit could not be ordered indirectly.

Conclusion: The deficiencies were not legally rectifiable by the importer in the manner sought.

Issue (iii): Whether prior permissions or earlier NOCs granted to other importers entitled the importer to clearance despite non-compliance.

Analysis: Prior governmental permission to import the oils did not override the mandatory labelling regime. Earlier mistaken or illegal NOCs granted to other importers could not create an enforceable right to repetition of illegality. Sections 25(2) and 89 of the Act were treated as excluding any such claim to clearance contrary to the regulations.

Conclusion: Prior permissions and earlier NOCs did not entitle the importer to NOC despite non-compliance.

Final Conclusion: The order allowing clearance was unsustainable because the mandatory labelling requirements were not met, rectification could not be compelled, and no right arose from earlier irregular approvals; the appellate challenge succeeded and the writ petition stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters governed by mandatory food labelling regulations, strict compliance is required, and neither prior irregular clearances nor the Court's writ jurisdiction can be used to create a right to regularise non-compliant labels or perpetuate illegality.

---