<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (12) TMI 1147 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269843</link>
    <description>Imported food products are subject to the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 even where they are described as raw materials or food additives for use in manufacture of another product. Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 requires packaged food to be marked and labelled as prescribed, and Regulations 2.2.2.9 and 2.2.2.10 mandate disclosure of the date of manufacture or packing and the best-before or use-by date. Missing mandatory label particulars was treated as a material defect, and import documents could not replace compliance with the labelling requirements. The court therefore upheld refusal to draw samples for testing and rejected the writ petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410090" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1147 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269843</link>
      <description>Imported food products are subject to the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 even where they are described as raw materials or food additives for use in manufacture of another product. Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 requires packaged food to be marked and labelled as prescribed, and Regulations 2.2.2.9 and 2.2.2.10 mandate disclosure of the date of manufacture or packing and the best-before or use-by date. Missing mandatory label particulars was treated as a material defect, and import documents could not replace compliance with the labelling requirements. The court therefore upheld refusal to draw samples for testing and rejected the writ petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>