Interpretation of "Diabetic Food" under Import-Export Policy led to reference on whether poppy seed is covered.

The Tribunal treated as referable the legal question whether poppy seed falls within the expression "Diabetic Food" under Item 55 of the 1992-97 Import-Export Policy. Questions on commercial meaning, scientific meaning, burden of proof, and comparison between Unani and Allopathic opinions were not treated as arising because they were not actually pressed or decided in the manner suggested. The Tribunal's substantive finding that poppy seed is not "Diabetic Food" was regarded as raising a question of law fit for reference to the jurisdictional High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the question, "Whether Poppy Seed is 'Diabetic Food' within the meaning of Item 55 of the list of freely importable consumer goods in the 1992-97 Import-Export Policy?", arose from the Tribunal's order for reference to the jurisdictional High Court.

Analysis: The application sought reference on several questions, but only the issue concerning the meaning and application of the expression "Diabetic Food" survived scrutiny. Questions relating to the commercial or scientific meaning of the expression, the burden of proof, and comparison between Unani and Allopathic opinions were not treated as arising from the order because they had not been pressed or were not actually decided in the manner suggested. The substantive point decided by the Tribunal was that poppy seed did not fall within the expression "Diabetic Food", and that finding raised a question of law fit for reference.

Conclusion: The question whether poppy seed is "Diabetic Food" within Item 55 of the 1992-97 Import-Export Policy was held to arise and was referred to the jurisdictional High Court.

---