Food labelling compliance applies to imported products, and missing mandatory particulars justified refusal to draw samples.

Imported food products are subject to the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 even where they are described as raw materials or food additives for use in manufacture of another product. Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 requires packaged food to be marked and labelled as prescribed, and Regulations 2.2.2.9 and 2.2.2.10 mandate disclosure of the date of manufacture or packing and the best-before or use-by date. Missing mandatory label particulars was treated as a material defect, and import documents could not replace compliance with the labelling requirements. The court therefore upheld refusal to draw samples for testing and rejected the writ petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 applied to the imported food product and whether the refusal to draw samples for testing on the ground of non-compliance with labelling requirements was lawful.

Analysis: The imported product was treated as a food item and not as an exempt category merely because it was described as a raw material or food additive used in the manufacture of another food product. The statutory scheme under Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 requires packaged food products to be marked and labelled as prescribed by the regulations. Regulations 2.2.2.9 and 2.2.2.10 require the label to disclose the date of manufacture or packing and the best-before or use-by date. The absence of the mandatory particulars on the label was held to be a material defect, and the import documents could not substitute for compliance with the label requirements. The Court also held that the labelling regulations apply to food products generally and are not confined only to pre-packaged food meant for direct retail consumption.

Conclusion: The labelling regulations were held applicable, the refusal to draw samples was upheld, and the writ petition was rejected.

---