Food-safety sampling authority remains with designated FSSAI officers, while Customs sampling continues separately for revenue and trade-compliance purposes.

Food-safety sampling of imported roasted areca nuts is addressed as falling within the statutory remit of the FSSAI Authorised Officer designated for the relevant port under the Food Safety and Standards Act and Import Regulations. The note distinguishes Customs sampling for classification, valuation, duty, misdeclaration and trade-policy compliance from sampling to determine food safety, edibility and human-consumption clearance. It states that the specialised food-safety regime has overriding application for certification purposes, so Customs powers cannot substitute for FSSAI certification. It also discusses writ jurisdiction where sampling authority and statutory procedure, rather than laboratory findings alone, are challenged, and refers to fresh FSSAI sampling and referral-laboratory testing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative remedy under the food-import regulations; (ii) Whether the FSSAI Authorised Officer was exclusively competent to draw samples for determining the food safety and fitness for human consumption of imported roasted areca nuts; (iii) Whether the Customs officer's power to take samples under the Customs Act could displace the FSSAI's authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative remedy under the food-import regulations.

Analysis: The challenge concerned the statutory competence of the officer who initiated sampling and the resulting validity of the laboratory reports, rather than merely the correctness of the reports. The alternative-remedy rule is discretionary and does not bar writ jurisdiction where proceedings are alleged to be without jurisdiction or contrary to statutory procedure.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the FSSAI Authorised Officer was exclusively competent to draw samples for determining the food safety and fitness for human consumption of imported roasted areca nuts.

Analysis: Sections 25 and 47(5) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, read with Regulation 13(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (Import) Regulations, 2017 and the notified port-authority list, designated the FSSAI Authorised Officer for Kolkata Port. Sampling for food safety by an officer lacking that statutory authority rendered the sampling process unlawful; a laboratory report founded on such sampling could not sustain adverse consequences.

Conclusion: The FSSAI Authorised Officer alone was competent to draw samples for food-safety testing and human-consumption clearance; sampling and test reports based on samples drawn by any other officer were void. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Customs officer's power to take samples under the Customs Act could displace the FSSAI's authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Analysis: The Food Safety and Standards Act has overriding operation in matters of food safety, standards and edibility. The Customs power under Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962 remains available independently for revenue-related purposes, including classification, valuation, duty liability, misdeclaration and trade-policy compliance, but cannot substitute for or override FSSAI food-safety certification.

Conclusion: Customs sampling powers survive for revenue purposes but cannot displace the FSSAI's exclusive authority over food-safety testing and certification. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Fresh sampling was directed through the FSSAI Authorised Officer and referral-laboratory testing, with protection against coercive action pending service of the report; conforming goods were directed to be released without demurrage or detention charges for the specified period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a specialised statute designates an authority to conduct food-safety sampling of imported food, sampling by another authority for that purpose is jurisdictionally invalid; Customs powers to investigate revenue matters remain distinct and cannot override food-safety certification.

---