2016 (9) TMI 723 - HC - Customs

Court dismisses petition for mandamus on MILO product samples, directs petitioner to seek labelling relaxation from FSSAI

The Court dismissed the petition seeking mandamus for sending MILO product samples and issuing a No Objection Certificate for local consumption. ... Issuance of No Objection Certificate for the consignments for local consumption - rejection of consignments - date of manufacture/packing - absence of name and complete address of the manufacturer/packer - Held that: - an identical issue seen in the case of Kantilal N.Shah v. The Authorised Officer, FSSAI, Chennai, and others [2016 (9) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. Petitioner to file an application before the Director of Imports, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, New Delhi, seeking one time relaxation and the application shall contain all the details and supported by documentary proof. Petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues:1. Petition seeking mandamus for sending samples of MILO products and issuing No Objection Certificate for local consumption.2. Rejection of food import due to missing information on packaging and labelling.3. Application of guidelines for permitting food item import.4. Court's consideration of a similar case involving Olive Oil import.5. Direction for petitioner to seek one-time relaxation from labelling requirements.Issue 1:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct respondents 3 and 4 to send samples of MILO products and issue a No Objection Certificate for local consumption. The rejection report highlighted missing information on packaging and labelling, leading to the rejection of the food import consignment.Issue 2:The rejection report pointed out two main issues: absence of the date of manufacture/packing and incomplete details of the manufacturer/packer on the product's label. These violations were cited under relevant regulations, resulting in the rejection of the food import.Issue 3:The petitioner argued that applying the Government of India's guidelines from 2012 could permit the import of the food item in question. However, the Court referenced a previous case involving Olive Oil import, emphasizing that technical matters should be addressed by the competent authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, rather than through a writ petition.Issue 4:In the Olive Oil import case, the Court highlighted that disputed technical matters should be handled by the competent authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The Court did not delve into verifying technical details in a writ petition but directed the importer to explore remedies available under the Act.Issue 5:The Court directed the petitioner to seek one-time relaxation from labelling requirements by filing an application before the Director of Imports, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. The Court impleaded the Director as a respondent and instructed the petitioner to provide detailed documentation for consideration within a specified timeline to address the impending expiry of the product's shelf life.Overall, the judgment focused on the technical violations in the food import consignment, emphasizing the need for competent authorities to address such matters under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The Court provided a pathway for the petitioner to seek relief by following the prescribed procedures and timelines for seeking relaxation from labelling requirements to facilitate the import process.