https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199303 Mandatory food labelling requirements were treated as a precondition for inspection and sampling of an imported consignment. Because the package disclosed only the supplier's name and did not show the name and complete address of the actual manufacturer or packer, the authorised officer was entitled to refuse sampling and clearance. The inclusive definition of "manufacturer" did not assist the importer, as the record did not establish that the supplier was the manufacturer or that the required particulars had otherwise been verified. The court also held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel action contrary to the statute, and the natural justice objection failed for want of demonstrated prejudice. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 25 Feb 2018 09:45:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199303 Mandatory food labelling requirements were treated as a precondition for inspection and sampling of an imported consignment. Because the package disclosed only the supplier's name and did not show the name and complete address of the actual manufacturer or packer, the authorised officer was entitled to refuse sampling and clearance. The inclusive definition of "manufacturer" did not assist the importer, as the record did not establish that the supplier was the manufacturer or that the required particulars had otherwise been verified. The court also held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel action contrary to the statute, and the natural justice objection failed for want of demonstrated prejudice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199303