TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uite different from that of the definition under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 referred supra and for better appreciation, the relevant definitions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are quoted herein below:- '2(v) food' means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes:- (a)any article which ordinarily enters into, or is used in the composition or preparation of, human food; (b)any flavouring matter or condiments and (c)any other article which the Central Government may, having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, as food for the purposes of this Act. 2(xii a) 'primary food' means any article of food, being a produce of agriculture or horticulture in its natural form" and further, in para 21 held that "the definition of 'Food' as contained under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act is an inclusive provision including any substance whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and also includes primary food to the extent defined under clause (zk) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppropriate maturity, the importer washes, cleans, dries and sorts the betel nuts after which they are soaked in water for ten days and subsequently, betel nuts are boiled, cleaned and dried again. Later, the outer shells are to be removed and only after completion of this process, the 'betel nuts' become consumable and marketable as a Food item. 6.The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner takes a categorical stand that in the 'Ungarbled Form' in which the betel nuts are imported, they did not qualify as a food item as they are not mentioned for human consumption in that way. As a matter of fact, the consumable betel nuts are sold to betel nuts vendors by the importer. 7.The Appellant with a view to secure clearance of the assignment at the earliest possible time, applied for approval through FICS system based on the reasonable expectation that No Objection Certificate would be granted by the Second Respondent on the footing that the relevant food standards are inapplicable to 'Ungarbled Betel Nuts' since it is not an article of food and therefore, it does not fall within the ambit of Food Safety and Standards Act. 8.The Learned counsel for the Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., solely due to natural causes and beyond the control of human agency, then such article shall not be deemed to be unsafe or sub-standard or food containing extraneous matter. 13.The Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Learned Single Judge had committed a grievous error in interpreting Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. At this stage, the Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that a purposeful and meaningful reading of the definition of Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 makes it crystal clear that an essential element for an article to be 'Food' for the purposes of this Act is that the Article must be 'intended for human consumption' in that very form and further, article may be processed, unprocessed or partially processed and selling it to human consumption included within the ambit of 'Food' for the purpose of Food Safety and Standards Act. Apart from that, the Learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the reasoning in the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in case of Al Marwa Traders Vs. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tests for the standards prescribed for dry fruits and nuts. I am also of the view that though AL Marwa's case (supra) was under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, the PFA Act) there is no difference in prescription of standards in respect of dry fruits and nuts under the PFA Act or FSS Act. Therefore, for non conformity of the standards prescribed for dry fruits and nuts, betel nuts imported by the petitioners cannot be detained. 13.However, question that arises is whether goods imported for which no prescription of standards are prescribed under the FSS Act can be directed to be released if it is found that goods are contaminated or unfit for human consumption or injurious to human life. In the Centre for Public Interest Litigation case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reminded authorities of the constitutional principles to safe guard the interest of citizen and protect human life. Therefore, the authorities have a duty to protect interest of citizen from the potential danger of contaminated or adulterated food articles or substances. In Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others [1993 AIR 1960], the Hon'ble Supreme Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of India. Therefore, in the absence of any specific standards in FSS Act, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India are bound to follow the standards of the Codex Alimentarius, if any, for determining the standards. In the absence of those standards as noted above, it is open for the Government and the authority to take precautionary measures, if any of the food articles that are being imported are dangerous to human or animal or plant life or health in India in terms of the SPS Agreement. 14.The learned Standing counsel for the Customs Shri John Varghese pointed out to para 17 of Al Marwa Trader's case wherein it is held by this Court as follows: 17. However, in public interest, we make it clear that although betel nuts imported by the appellants cannot be subjected to test for the standards prescribed under Item A.29.04, certainly, the respondents can ensure that the same is not adulterated in the sense mentioned in Section 2(b), (e) and (f) so as to see that the appellants are not importing betel nuts which are not injurious to the health of the ultimate consumer, who may consume the product made of betel nuts imported by the appellants. We are told by the counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellant would fall within the definition of 'Food' and 'Primary Food' which would also include any substance used in the food during its manufacture, preparation or on treatment to be an article of food under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 20.The Learned counsel for the Second Respondent contends that the Learned Single Judge had primarily appreciated that there is vast difference between the definition of 'food' and 'primary food' in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 21.The Learned counsel for the Second Respondent submits that in the counter to the Writ Petition, the Second Respondent had in para 6 referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pyarali K. Tejani Vs. MahadeoRamchandraDange and others [1974 AIR 228, 1974 SCR (2) 154, 1974 SCC (1) 167] wherein it was held as under It is commonplace knowledge that the word foodis a very general term and applies to all that is eaten by man for nourishment and takes in subsidiaries. Is supari eaten with relish by man for taste and nourishment? It is. And so it is food. Without carrying further on this unusual argument we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efence. It is intended to suppress a social and economic mischief-an evil which attempts to poison, for monetary gains, the very sources of sustenance of life and the well-being of the community. The evil of adulteration of food and its effects on the health of the community are assuming alarming proportions. The offence of adulteration is a socio-economic offence. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Kacheroo Mal [1976 (1) SCC 412] in para 5 Sarkaria, J. said: The Act has been enacted to curb and remedy the widespread evil of food adulteration, and to ensure the sale of wholesome food to the people. It is well-settled that wherever possible, without unreasonable stretching or straining, the language of such a statute should be construed in a manner which would suppress the mischief, advance the remedy, promote its object, prevent its subtle evasion and foil its artful circumvention." 24.Further, this Court aptly cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pyarali K.Tejani Vs. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and others, 1974 (1) Supreme Court Cases at page 167 & 168 wherein it is observed and held as follows: "The Act (Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954) defines &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 NUC (All) 169 & (1918) 88 LJKB 441, Rel. on." (iii) In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan [AIR 2001 Supreme Court 47] and at special page 48 and 49 in para 5 it is observed as follows: "Part III of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (for short 'the Rules') contains "Definitions and Standards of Quality" of various articles of food. Rule 5 which falls within the said part says that "the standards of quality of various articles of food specified in Appendix B to these Rules are as defined in that appendix." Milk is defined in Item A.11.01.01 of Appendix B as the normal mammary secretion derived from complete milking of healthy milch animal without either addition thereto or extraction therefrom." But it shall be free from colostrum." The above definition does not differentiate between milk of different animals. Hence, it is clear that camel's milk also would fall within the amplitude of the said definition. The question whether the camel milk can be consumed by human beings as a food article need not vex us much, for the Food Inspector in this case took the sample on the assumption that it was a food article. ....