TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. A Food Authority, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, has been established under s.4 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Import clearance of food articles in all ports is looked after by the Food Authority. Under the Food Import Clearance System followed by the Food Authority, Heartland applied to the officer authorised by the Food Authority for NOC. By an email dated December 24, 2013 the officer informed Heartland as follows: - "product approval for canola oil to be obtained from FSSAI Head Quarter New Delhi and the representation has been forwarded to New Delhi." 4. Since the authorised officer was not taking samples of the articles, Heartland moved this court by filing a WP No.2251 (W) of 2014 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By an order dated January 24, 2014 a single Judge disposed of the WP directing the Food Authority "to expedite the process of clearance." 5. The Eastern Region Deputy Director of the Food Authority gave a decision dated February 6, 2014 that sampling of the articles would not be allowed, because some major declarations on the labels of the articles did not fulfil the requirements of the Food Safety a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inistry of Health and Family Welfare, it has been categorically mentioned about Canola Oil (Refined imported Rapeseed Oil containing low uric acid) at Page nos.9, 10, 75 and 76 along with other Oils. Canola Oil is very aptly defined to be "...One of the most widely used cooking oil; Canola is a (Trademarked) variety (cultivar) of rapeseed". Your petitioner states that the entire sentence denotes that the trademark variety of Rapeseed is called Canola Oil and cultivar variety of Canola is Rapeseed Oil." 13. Asserting that the declarations on the labels of its imported articles of food were perfect and fulfilled all the requirements of law, and that the deputy director gave the decision without considering the provisions of a notification dated March 23, 2012 laying down the guidelines on food import clearance process by the authorised officer, Heartland prayed for a mandamus commanding the authorised officer to take samples of the articles and send the samples to the food analyst for testing and report for the NOC purpose. 14. By an order dated April 24, 2014 a single Judge entertained the WP, gave directions for affidavits and passed an interim order directing the authorised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el giving the particulars including those regarding the product being "Rapeseed Oil", date of import etc. can be pasted on the packages to overcome the omission. Mr. Maitra, Learned advocate, however submits that the other products that have been allowed into the market have been done so by the said respondents by mistake and steps are being taken against such importers. Such products have been allowed to be sold in the market since the year 2011 and they still continue to be sold. This court, therefore, is unable to accept such submission and on the contrary finds favour with the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Indian consumers are aware that "Canola Oil" is vegetable oil. In the circumstances, the letter dated 27th March, 2014 impugned in this writ petition is set aside. There will be an order in terms of prayer 'D' of the writ petition. The writ petition is allowed to the extent aforesaid. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to forthwith consider and approve the label to be stuck on the containers by the petitioner considering that the product is perishable and thereafter the said respondents as well as the customs autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the unreported Delhi High Court decisions dated August 13, 2014 in WP(c) No.3708 of 2014 (Danisco (India) Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India & Anr.) and August 20, 2014 (United Distributors Incorporation v. Union of India & Anr.) and an unreported Bombay High Court decision dated September 16, 2014 in WP No.2080 of 2014 (Dalmia Continental Pvt. Ltd. V. FSSAI & Anr.). 20. The pleadings of the parties before the single Judge gave rise to the following issues: - (i) Whether the labels on the articles of food imported by Heartland suffered from any deficiency; (ii) If the labels suffered from any deficiency, whether the deficiency was rectifiable and could be rectified by Heartland; and (iii) Whether the case stated in WP paras.6 and 9 and supplementary affidavit para.4 that the Food Authority previously granted NOCs to importers of same oils still in market entitled Heartland to the NOC. 21. Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is quoted below: - "23.Packaging and labelling of foods.―(1) No person shall manufacture, distribute, sell or expose for sale or despatch or deliver to any agent or broker for the purpose of sale, any p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) for which a licence is required, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence; or (iv) which is for the time being prohibited by the Food Authority or the Central Government or the State Government in the interest of public health; or (v) in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule or regulation made thereunder." 24. Section 89 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is quoted below: - "89. Overriding effect of this Act over all other food related laws.― The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act." 25. The authorised officer was to act on the NOC request. He refused to take samples of the imported articles of food on the grounds that there were major labelling deficiencies. In his first decision dated February 6, 2014 the deputy director mentioned the deficiencies. He gave the second decision dated March 27, 2014 in compliance with an order of a single Judge. He heard Heartland and the authorised officer whose every obj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r was accepted by Heartland. 32. Under reg.2.4.2(5) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 every container in which the Canola oil was packed was to bear the label: - "Imported Refined (name of the Oil) Oil." According to Heartland, every container bore: - "Imported from Canada." According to the authorised officer, every container ought to have borne the label: ― "Imported Refined Rapeseed Oil." 33. Under reg.2.4.2(11) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 every Oliveola container containing an admixture of an edible oil was to carry the following label:− "This blended edible oil contains an admixture of: (i)............% by Weight (ii)...........% by Weight." Name and nature of the edible vegetable oils, i.e. in raw or refined form were to be mentioned. 34. According to Heartland, the containers carried the labels "Refined Canola Oil 80% by Weight," etc. According to the authorised officer, the containers ought to have carried the labels "Imported Refined Rapseed Oil - low Erucic acid 80% by weight" etc. 35. Regulation 2.3.14(11) of the Food Safety an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not the decision of the single Judge that the deputy director was wrong in accepting the authorised officer's objections that the labels did not fulfill the requirements of the regulations. We have stated hereinbefore what decision the deputy director gave. And we find that every labelling deficiency mentioned by the deputy director was a real labelling deficiency detected by the authorised officer while taking steps on Heartland's NOC application. 41. The real issue before the deputy director was whether the manufacturer had labelled the articles of food manufactured, packed and labelled by it in strict compliance with the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011, not whether Canola oil and rapeseed oil were one and the same. 42. Heartland's own case is as follows. As to Canola oil, the trade name of the food is "Heartland's CHOICE" and the description of the food is "Pure Canola Oil;" and as to Oliveola, the trade name of the food is "Heartland's Oliveola" and the description of the food is "EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE & CANOLA Pure Blend Oil." 43. The Food Authority Training Manual for Food Safety Regulators, 2010 - relied on by He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncies by affixing appropriate labels according to the requirements of the regulations concerned. The deputy director stated his inability on the grounds that the deficiencies were not rectifiable by sticker affixation. 50. The single Judge, it is evident from his decision, accepted Heartland's case that it was entitled to rectify the deficiencies by affixing appropriate labels. There is no law that entitled Heartland to do the thing. Hence we are unable to accept that the Food Authority officials could be directed to allow Heartland to do it. The articles could be re-labelled, if at all, only by their Canadian manufacturer that had labelled them as such. 51. It is not the law that if the imported food articles are found to be safe and wholesome for human consumption, then the Food Authority is bound to grant Heartland NOC, even if their labelling does not fulfil the requirements of the regulations. Such a proposition shall defeat the provisions of s.23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and make the provisions of the regulations otios. 52. Purpose of labelling is not to be ascertained by anyone for diluting the rigours of the regulations and importing the concept o....