Pre-packaged food labelling rules do not apply to industrial-use ingredients imported for manufacturing, not direct consumer sale.

Packaged goods intended solely for industrial use in manufacturing another food product were held not to be "pre-packaged food" for mandatory labelling purposes because that expression must be read with the parent Act's consumer-based definition. Goods not meant for direct human consumption or personal consumption fall outside the ingredient-list requirement. On that construction, lactic cultures imported for yoghurt manufacture were treated as food additives rather than consumer food, and the disclosed package particulars were sufficient for regulatory scrutiny. The refusal to issue a no-objection certificate for alleged non-disclosure of ingredients was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned communication was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods, being lactic cultures intended for use in manufacture of yoghurt, were "pre-packaged food" so as to attract the mandatory labelling requirements under the Packaging and Labelling Regulations, and whether rejection of the request for a no-objection certificate on the ground of non-disclosure of ingredients was sustainable.

Analysis: The relevant statutory scheme required packaging and labelling compliance for packaged food products, but the expression "pre-packaged" had to be read with the definition of "consumer" in the parent Act. On that construction, pre-packaged food meant food ready for sale to persons or families purchasing food for their personal needs, i.e. personal consumption. Goods meant for industrial use in the manufacture of another food product, and not for direct human consumption, fell outside that category. The imported cultures were also treated as food additives used in yoghurt manufacture, and the packaging disclosed sufficient product particulars for regulatory examination. The mandatory ingredient-list requirement under the labelling regulation was therefore inapplicable.

Conclusion: The imported goods were not pre-packaged food and the rejection of the no-objection certificate on the basis of Regulation 2.2.2 was unsustainable; the challenge succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned communication was set aside and the authority was required to consider the goods on the basis of the package particulars and product description, resulting in relief to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Labelling requirements meant for pre-packaged food do not apply to packaged goods intended solely for industrial use and not for sale to consumers for personal consumption.

---