Mandatory food labelling requirements justified refusal to sample and clear an imported consignment lacking manufacturer details.

Mandatory food labelling requirements were treated as a precondition for inspection and sampling of an imported consignment. Because the package disclosed only the supplier's name and did not show the name and complete address of the actual manufacturer or packer, the authorised officer was entitled to refuse sampling and clearance. The inclusive definition of "manufacturer" did not assist the importer, as the record did not establish that the supplier was the manufacturer or that the required particulars had otherwise been verified. The court also held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel action contrary to the statute, and the natural justice objection failed for want of demonstrated prejudice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to draw samples and grant clearance to the imported food consignment, on the ground that the label did not disclose the name and complete address of the manufacturer or packer as required by the statutory label requirements, was valid and liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The consignment was found to disclose only the supplier's name, while the record did not furnish the name and complete address of the actual manufacturer or processor at the place of origin. The Court held that the statutory scheme requires satisfaction of the labelling conditions before samples are drawn, and the authorised officer is empowered to decline sampling where mandatory particulars are absent. The inclusive definition of "manufacturer" did not assist the petitioner, because the petitioner and its foreign supplier had not shown that the supplier was the manufacturer or that the actual manufacturer's details were declared on the package or verified from the documents. The Court further held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel an authority to act contrary to the statute, and that the pleaded natural justice objection did not show any concrete prejudice or procedural violation.

Conclusion: The refusal to draw samples and the rejection of the consignment were upheld. The challenge failed, and the importer was not entitled to clearance of the goods on the facts found.

Final Conclusion: Mandatory compliance with food labelling requirements was treated as a precondition for inspection and sampling, and the Court declined to interfere with the authority's rejection of the imported consignment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory label requirements mandate disclosure of the manufacturer's name and complete address, an imported food consignment that omits those particulars can validly be refused sampling or clearance, and a writ court will not direct an authority to disregard that mandatory requirement.

---