Proprietary foods remain regulated under food safety law, and imported consignments require statutory sampling before clearance.

Proprietary foods are not wholly outside the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; they remain subject to regulation where they are unsafe or contain prohibited ingredients, and the applicable regulations also require compliance with labelling norms. Mere absence of a product from the appendices does not, by itself, make import impermissible. For imported food consignments, clearance must follow the prescribed sampling and testing process under the Act, and procedural objections or unresolved labelling issues do not justify bypassing that mechanism. The authority was therefore directed to inspect, sample and test the goods in accordance with law before release could be considered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proprietary foods are entirely outside the purview of Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; (ii) whether the Food Safety and Standards Authority was justified in declining to draw samples and clear the imported goods on the basis of the alleged labelling deficiencies and procedural objections.

Issue (i): Whether proprietary foods are entirely outside the purview of Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Analysis: Section 22 is not to be read as excluding every proprietary food from the Act. The opening words, together with the Explanation and the proviso, show that the prohibition is directed at proprietary foods that are unsafe or contain foods and ingredients prohibited under the Act and the regulations. Regulation 2.12.1 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 further contemplates proprietary foods and requires them to comply with the regulatory provisions and the labelling requirements. The mere fact that a particular product is not specifically named in the Appendices does not by itself render it impermissible for import.

Conclusion: The objection that proprietary foods are wholly outside the ambit of the Act was rejected and the finding was in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the Food Safety and Standards Authority was justified in declining to draw samples and clear the imported goods on the basis of the alleged labelling deficiencies and procedural objections.

Analysis: The record did not conclusively establish whether the packages satisfied the labelling requirements under Regulations 2.2.2(6), 2.2.2(8) and 2.2.2(9) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. At the same time, the Customs authorities had not followed the prescribed single-window procedure and the Food Safety and Standards Authority had not been kept in the loop when samples were earlier drawn. Since the goods were food items, the Court required sampling and testing by the authorised officer of the Food Safety and Standards Authority in accordance with Section 47 of the Act before clearance could be considered.

Conclusion: The authority was directed to inspect, sample and test the goods in accordance with law, and the petitioner received interim relief against insistence on immediate payment of testing charges.

Final Conclusion: The decision clarified that proprietary food is not per se excluded from regulation under the Act and that clearance of imported food consignments must follow the statutory sampling and testing procedure before release.

Ratio Decidendi: Proprietary food falls within the regulatory framework of the Act and can be excluded only if it is unsafe or contains prohibited ingredients, while clearance of imported food goods depends on compliance with the prescribed sampling and testing mechanism.

---