Food safety standards apply to imported betel nuts found non-conforming after laboratory testing

Imported areca nut or betel nut was treated as "food" under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 because the definition covers any substance intended for human consumption, including primary food. The Act's scheme did not exempt agricultural produce from regulatory scrutiny, and reliance on cases under the repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was unhelpful. The consignment was lawfully tested under the applicable food standards regulations and was found non-conforming due to damage, discoloration and mould growth. The court therefore held that the goods were amenable to standards enforcement and refused relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether ungarbled areca nut or betel nut imported by the appellant answers the definition of food under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and whether the consignment could be subjected to testing against the applicable food standards under that Act.

Analysis: The expression "food" under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is of wide amplitude and includes any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended for human consumption, as well as primary food within the meaning of Section 3(zk). The scheme of the Act, including Section 48(2)(b), shows that primary food is not exempt from regulatory scrutiny merely because it is agricultural produce. The Court also held that the repeal of the earlier Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the wider language of the later enactment made the appellant's reliance on decisions under the earlier statute of no assistance. On the facts, the consignment was described as areca nuts or betel nuts, was subjected to laboratory testing under the Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, and was found to be non-conforming because of damage, discoloration, and mould growth.

Conclusion: The imported betel nuts fell within the ambit of food under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and were amenable to the prescribed standards. The appellant was not entitled to the relief sought.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal was devoid of merit and the order of the Single Judge refusing relief was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, any substance intended for human consumption, including primary food, may be tested for compliance with prescribed standards, and a consignment failing such standards is liable to regulatory action.

---