Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The petitioner company, engaged in importing and distributing chocolates, imported 18000 kilograms of dark compound chocolates from Singapore. The second respondent instructed officers to physically examine the goods for compliance with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (the Act) and its rules. The first respondent refused to draw samples because the date of manufacture, expiry, and other declarations were not printed as required by the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 (the Regulations), but were instead on a label stuck to the product.
Issue 2: Labelling requirements for imported food productsThe petitioner argued that the decision not to take samples was arbitrary and illegal, citing Regulation 2.2 of the Regulations, which allows necessary declarations to be made on a securely affixed label. Section 3(1)(z) of the Act defines a label as any tag, brand, mark, etc., attached to a container. The petitioner had previously imported similar products with similar labelling, which were allowed by customs authorities in Bangalore. The respondents contended that the labelling did not meet the mandatory requirements, as the information should be printed directly on the cover or wrapper.
Issue 3: Authority and procedure for taking samples for testingThe petitioner cited previous court decisions and guidelines allowing rectification of minor labelling deficiencies in customs warehouses. The respondents argued that deficiencies beyond rectification should not allow the import of such products. The court noted that the main purpose of the regulation is to ensure consumers are aware of the product information and that the nature and quality of the goods can be determined by testing samples. The court found no regulation mandating that information must be printed directly on the cover or wrapper and allowed the use of securely affixed labels.
Judgment:The court set aside the impugned letter of the first respondent, dated 12.1.2012, and directed the respondents to take samples of the imported goods for testing within seven days. The goods shall be released only if they are fit for human consumption, upon payment of the appropriate duty. The writ petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.