TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>High Court Dismisses Writ Petition on Red Bull Energy Drink Classification</h1> The High Court dismissed the writ petition concerning the classification of Red Bull Energy Drink as 'Proprietary Food' versus 'Non-Alcoholic Carbonated ... Alternative Remedy- writ jurisdiction- Relief sought is to classify and categorize the ‘Red Bull Energy Drink’ as proprietary food and not as a non-alcoholic carbonated water under prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. whether reports as annexed to writ petition are conclusive or not is something which must be decided on the basis of evidence and more particularly expert opinion, by competent authorities and courts. Once, there is dispute and it is raised in reference to various reports and analysis, the writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate remedy for petitioners. Petition dismissed as petitioners have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy. Issues Involved:1. Classification of Red Bull Energy Drink as Proprietary Food versus Non-Alcoholic Carbonated Water.2. Legality of seizure and detention of the product by the authorities.3. Validity of the analysis report and subsequent actions based on it.4. Availability of alternative remedies and jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Red Bull Energy Drink:The petitioners argued that Red Bull Energy Drink should be classified as 'Proprietary Food' under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955, and not as 'Non-Alcoholic Carbonated Water.' They referenced a letter from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade dated April 8, 2003, which classified the drink under ITC (HS) Code No. 2202 90 90 (Non-Alcoholic Beverage other than aerated/carbonated water). The petitioners contended that since the category of energy drinks is not standardized under the PFA Rules, it falls under the category of 'Proprietary Food' as defined in Rule 37A of the said Rules. They emphasized that a Proprietary Food does not need to comply with the standards prescribed in Appendix B to the PFA Rules but must adhere to other PFA Act and Rules requirements.2. Legality of Seizure and Detention:The petitioners stated that their product had been imported and released in India for several years following testing and findings by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. However, on April 9, 2009, authorities seized the product from their warehouses, treating it as carbonated water, which did not conform to the standards laid down under the Act and Rules. The petitioners argued that this seizure was in contravention of the Madras High Court's orders and the analysis report, which classified the product as 'proprietary food.'3. Validity of Analysis Report:The petitioners challenged the analysis report dated May 20, 2009, by Respondent No. 2, which concluded that the product was carbonated water. They argued that this report was erroneous and contradicted the findings of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the certificate issued on March 10, 2008, which classified the product as 'proprietary food.' They contended that the conflicting versions of the authorities needed to be corrected.4. Availability of Alternative Remedies and Jurisdiction:The respondents argued that the petitioners had an alternative and equally efficacious remedy available through the criminal proceedings initiated against them. They contended that the High Court should not decide on disputed questions of facts, such as whether the product is proprietary food or carbonated water. The court agreed, stating that such technical matters should be left to the authorities under the Act and Rules. The court emphasized that the petitioners could raise their contentions in the pending criminal proceedings and seek the release of the seized stocks through the competent Criminal Court under Sections 451, 452, and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.Conclusion:The court concluded that the petitioners had an alternative and equally efficacious remedy available and that the writ jurisdiction was not appropriate for resolving the disputed questions of facts. The writ petition was dismissed, with the court keeping all contentions open and clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy. There was no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
