2010 (1) TMI 444 - HC - Customs

Appeal Process for Food Adulteration Case: Central Laboratory Review

The Court directed the petitioner to appeal before the Central Food Laboratory within a specified period regarding the adulteration found in a consignment ... Import – Adulterated consignment – petitioner referring to Section 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 submits that since such adulteration was due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency it should not be deemed to be adulterated. – Held that: the petitioner if aggrieved should have preferred appeal before the said body though the second test has been conducted and order has been passed by CFL. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer appeal before the CFL (Central Food Laboratory) Issues:Release of imported food consignment - Adulteration of goods - Appellate laboratory designation under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954Analysis:The judgment involves a writ petition where the petitioner sought direction for the release of a consignment of Whole Yellow peas of Ukraine origin. The consignment arrived at the port of Kolkata on 3rd November, 2009, and the customs authorities ordered testing of representative samples by the Port Health Officer and Plant Quarantine authorities before clearance. The Plant Quarantine Station recommended the goods for release, but subsequent tests at the Central Food Laboratory revealed adulteration not conforming to standards. The petitioner contended that the adulteration was due to natural causes beyond human control.The petitioner argued based on Section 2(ia)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, that the adulteration should not be deemed as such. However, the respondents pointed out that the Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata, designated as the appellate laboratory, should have been approached for appeal as per existing rules if the petitioner was aggrieved by the test results. The Court considered the technical nature of determining adulteration and the appellate laboratory designation, directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Central Food Laboratory within a specified period.In the judgment, the Court emphasized that the appellate laboratory, CFL, would act as an appellate body, and the order passed would be by an officer different from the one who initially tested the consignment. The decision on the appeal would consider relevant provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and related rules. The Court mandated that the order resulting from the appeal process should be reasoned and issued within a fortnight from the date of communication of the judgment. Ultimately, both writ petitions were disposed of without any cost orders, and parties were instructed to act upon a signed copy of the order.