Strict food labelling compliance requires manufacturer details on every package, and defective imports cannot be regularised in writ jurisdiction.

Mandatory food labelling norms require every package to disclose the manufacturer's name and complete address, and where applicable the packer or bottler. The article notes that the imported consignment failed this disclosure test because the supplier was not the manufacturer and the label did not satisfy the prescribed requirements. The Court treated compliance as strict, applied the relevant FSSAI regulations and guidelines, and declined to direct rectification of the defect in writ jurisdiction. It also observed that the goods had already crossed the relevant shelf-life period, which further weighed against interference. The rejection of the consignment and refusal to issue the no objection certificate were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the import consignment for non-compliance with the labelling requirements was valid and whether the appellate court should interfere with the refusal to issue the no objection certificate.

Analysis: The imported food article was required to disclose the name and complete address of the manufacturer, and where applicable the packer or bottler, on every package of food. The material on record showed that the supplier was not the manufacturer and that the label did not satisfy the mandatory disclosure requirement. The Court treated the requirement as one of strict compliance, relied on the applicable FSSAI guidelines and regulations, and held that rectification of such deficiencies could not be directed in writ jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the goods had already crossed the relevant shelf-life period, which further reduced the case for interference.

Conclusion: The rejection order was upheld and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal failed, the challenge to the refusal of the no objection certificate was rejected, and the appellant was left only with the liberty indicated regarding re-export and demurrage.

Ratio Decidendi: Mandatory food labelling norms requiring disclosure of the manufacturer's name and complete address call for strict compliance, and a writ court will not direct relaxation or rectification of such defects, particularly where the goods are otherwise unsuitable for use.

---