<?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>2014 (9) TMI 1032 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179069</link>
    <description>Mandatory food labelling requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Packaging and Labelling Regulations, 2011 were held to require strict compliance. Imported edible oils were found non-compliant because they lacked required particulars, including the correct food name and statutory declarations, and carried labels such as &quot;No Cholesterol&quot; and &quot;No Trans Fat&quot; without the prescribed disclosures. The alleged defects were not treated as curable by unilateral relabelling or sticker affixation by the importer. Prior permissions and earlier NOCs granted in other cases did not create a right to clearance contrary to the regulations, and could not justify repetition of illegality.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 May 2016 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 1032 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179069</link>
      <description>Mandatory food labelling requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Packaging and Labelling Regulations, 2011 were held to require strict compliance. Imported edible oils were found non-compliant because they lacked required particulars, including the correct food name and statutory declarations, and carried labels such as &quot;No Cholesterol&quot; and &quot;No Trans Fat&quot; without the prescribed disclosures. The alleged defects were not treated as curable by unilateral relabelling or sticker affixation by the importer. Prior permissions and earlier NOCs granted in other cases did not create a right to clearance contrary to the regulations, and could not justify repetition of illegality.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>