TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses of the Petitioners seized/detained by Respondent No. 4 as detailed in Exhibit on that basis and (ii) to treat/classify/categorize the Petitioners product Red Bull Energy Drink(R) as Proprietary Food and not as non-alcoholic carbonated water and to deal with the same on the basis that it is a Proprietary food. (b) For a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the papers and records relating to the analysis report of Respondent No. 2 dated May 20, 2009 and quashing/set aside all acts, actions and proceedings done or initiated on the basis thereof." 2. It is the case of the petitioners that both First Petitioner and Second Petitioner are companies incorporated under the laws of Austria. The First Petitioner is a subsidiary of Petitioner No. 2. They manufacture a Energy Drink known as "Red Bull Energy Drink". It is stated that this is a well known global brand and sold across about 150 countries in the world. The Third Petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and inter alia engages itself in the business o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grievance is that their Energy Drink is non-alcoholic aerated, carbonated water. It would not be required to conform to the standards laid down for carbonated water under Item A. 01.01 of Appendix B to the PFA Rules. The further grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondent No. 2 is treating their product as a "carbonated water." In such circumstances, the consignment of the product which has been imported into India has been seized and details of the seizure are set out in the Petition. 5. The Petitioners state that Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 have been importing the said Energy Drink from Petitioner No. 2 for last several years and the same is being released by the Respondents after testing, in accordance with the findings and orders of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. It is stated that on 10th January, 2005 Respondent No. 3 tested the Petitioners' Energy Drink as non-alcoholic beverage/carbonated water and determined that the product did not conform to the standards prescribed for non-alcoholic beverage/carbonated water as provided by Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules. Therefore, a Show Cause Notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A Act. The stocks seized are worth Rs. 63,25,350/-. It is then alleged that on 13th April, 2009 one part of the sample was sent to Respondent No. 2 and remaining samples were sent for testing to the Local Health Authority (Food Drug Administration), Raigad. The Second Respondent in contravention of the orders, directions and findings of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the analysis report wrongly concluded that the product is carbonated water and held that it does not conform to the standards laid down for such product under the Act and Rules. That report is dated 20th May, 2009, which is annexed as Annexure 'G' to the Writ Petition. 8. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 4 initiated prosecution against Petitioner No. 1 and its Directors in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alibag, District Raigad being (i) Case No. 329/09 dated June 15, 2009, (ii) Case No. 330/09 dated June 15, 2009, (iii) Case No. 331/09 dated June 15, 2009, (iv) Case No. 332/09 dated June 15, 2009, (v) Case No. 333/09 dated June 15, 2009, (vi) Case No. 334/09 dated June 15, 2009, and (vii) Case No. 335/09 dated June 15, 2009. Proceedings for release of goods are also pending therein. 9. Similarly, insp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be re-opened once again by the State Government or its officers. He submits that the Petitioners be not relegated to any other forum but this Court should decide the controversy on the basis of the available material and grant the reliefs as prayed, more so, when there is no affidavit in reply nor any dispute is raised by the Respondents. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Nalavade, appearing for the State and Mrs. Bharucha, appearing for Respondent No. 7 have urged that there is alternate and equally efficacious remedy available to the Petitioner inasmuch as pursuant to the seizure that has been effected, the Respondents have initiated proceedings which are pending in a Criminal Court. It is for the Criminal Court to decide now as to whether the Petitioners are guilty of any offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This Court cannot go into the disputed questions of facts and find out as to whether the drink/product is a proprietary food and falls in that category or is carbonated water and therefore, conforms or does not conform to the standards as laid down in the Rules. Both of them have taken us through the reports at Exhibits 'F' and 'G' to the Writ Petition and the....