Court upholds FSSAI guidelines on labelling, petitioner to pay costs, reinforces food safety regulations

The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the FSSAI guidelines and emphasizing the importance of clear and distinct labelling for 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date'. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 30,000, with specific instructions for the allocation of the amount if not paid within the stipulated time. The court's decision reinforced the need for strict adherence to food safety regulations to protect consumer interests.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulations, 2011.
2. Distinction between 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date'.
3. Validity of FSSAI guidelines dated 24.01.2013.
4. Petitioner's previous non-compliance and undertaking.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulations, 2011:
The petitioner imported Active Dry Yeast, which was rejected by the Customs Department for non-compliance with the labelling requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The impugned order stated that the product did not meet the labelling requirement as both 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date' were mentioned as the same, i.e., 30.04.2016. The petitioner argued that as per Regulation 2.2.9 of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulations, 2011, it was sufficient to provide the date of manufacture and the best before date, which was complied with. The court, however, found that the labelling did not meet the requirements as it misled consumers regarding the product's quality and safety.

2. Distinction between 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date':
The court elaborated on the definitions provided in the Regulations, 2011. 'Best Before Date' signifies the period during which the food remains marketable and retains specific qualities, while 'Expiry Date' indicates the end of the period after which the food is not expected to have the quality and safety attributes normally expected by consumers. The court emphasized that 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date' serve different purposes and should not be the same. The court noted that allowing both dates to be the same would mislead consumers into believing the product would maintain its best quality until the expiry date, which is not practical.

3. Validity of FSSAI guidelines dated 24.01.2013:
The petitioner contended that the guidelines issued by FSSAI, which required 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date' to be different, had no statutory force and exceeded the scope of the Regulations. The court, however, upheld the guidelines, stating that they were issued to ensure public interest and consumer safety. The court referenced several judgments to support the principle that strict compliance with regulations is necessary to prevent misleading consumers.

4. Petitioner's previous non-compliance and undertaking:
The court noted that the petitioner had previously violated the same regulation in 2013 but was granted a one-time relaxation by FSSAI upon providing an undertaking to comply with the requirements in future consignments. The court found that the petitioner, having availed of the relaxation, was estopped from challenging the impugned order and had acted contrary to the undertaking. The court criticized the petitioner's attitude and imposed costs for the violation.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the FSSAI guidelines and emphasizing the importance of clear and distinct labelling for 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date'. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 30,000, with specific instructions for the allocation of the amount if not paid within the stipulated time. The court's decision reinforced the need for strict adherence to food safety regulations to protect consumer interests.

---