TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside decision, orders testing of imported goods within 7 days. Release if fit for consumption. Petition allowed.</h1> <h3>M/s. Foodlever India Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its General Manager-Marketing Mr. Yogesh Mathur, Versus Senior Inspecting Officer, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India Southern Regional Office-MFPO, C/o. Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, Chennai and The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Chennai</h3> The court set aside the decision of the first respondent and directed samples of imported goods to be taken for testing within seven days. Goods can be ... - Issues Involved:1. Compliance with Food Safety and Standards Act and Regulations.2. Labelling requirements for imported food products.3. Authority and procedure for taking samples for testing.Summary:Issue 1: Compliance with Food Safety and Standards Act and RegulationsThe 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
