AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r referred to as the "Act and Rules") and therefore, samples cannot be drawn for analysis as the name and complete address of the manufacturer/packer is not mentioned as required under Regulation 2.2.2:6(i) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packing and Labelling) Regulation, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation'. 2. The facts which are necessary for disposal of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner who are engaged in the business of manufacturing confectionery items, cakes, wafers etc., imported as consignment of 12.5 tonnes of "Desiccated Coconut Fine Grade" from a supplier at Malaysia, M/s.Behn Meyer Chemicals (M) SDN BHD (M/s.BMC), the consignment was imported based on a commercial invoice issued by M/s.BMC, dated 27.05.2014. The consignment arrived at the Chennai Port on 26.05.2014 and Bill of Entry dated 07.06.2014, was filed. On Bill of Entry being presented, the fourth respondent, Deputy Director, Authorised Officer under the Act refused to issue the No Objection Certificate on the ground that the complete address of the manufacturer/packer is not mentioned in the product as required under Regulation 2.2.2:6.(i) of the Regulation. The petitioner su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also provides for one more avenue namely, under para i(c) stating that if complete address of the manufacturer is not given in the labels and his name alone is given, his address may be verified from the relevant documents like certificate of analysis, invoice etc. By referring to the definition of "Manufacturer" under Regulation 3(zd) of the Act, it is submitted that a manufacturer means a person engaged in the business of manufacturing any article of food for sale and includes any person, who obtains such article from another person and packs and labels it for sale or only labels it for such purposes. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner's supplier clearly falls within the definition of "Manufacturer" and therefore, the respondents are not justified in refusing to draw samples on the ground the consignment does not satisfy the Labelling requirement. 4. The learned counsel referred to the commercial invoice dated 12.05.2014, to show that the name of the exporter/supplier has been mentioned, which finds place in the packing of the consignment, the country of origin has been mentioned as Indonesia and the supplier is from Malaysia. Further, by referring to the bill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that after the procedure contemplated therein is followed, the Authorised Officer inspects the consignment to verify the documents, labels on the product and further verifications are made qua the source of import i.e., whether or not, the import is from a banned/prohibited/restricted source and whether it fulfils the requirements issued by FSSAI. Further, it is submitted that verification is done with regard to the remaining shelf life of the product and at the time of import is more than 60% of the original shelf life is a mandatory requirement as per the notification and it is submitted that if there is any violation of any of the applicable provisions of law, sample will not be drawn from the imported consignment and rejection note will be forwarded to the Customs Authority pointing out the contravention, which came to light during Inspection and Verification process. 7. Sofar as the petitioner's case it is submitted that they submitted an application on-line seeking clearance of the imported consignment "Desiccated Coconut Fine Grade". The inspection was carried out on 04.07.2014 and on inspection, it was found that the label was in complete contravention of the mandat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner, since the petitioner has admitted to be a "supplier" and not a "manufacturer". Further, it is submitted that the product imported is to be used for manufacturer of chocolates, which would be consumed by children and even as per the bill of lading, the shelf life of the product will expire in May 2015 and from the representation given by the petitioner, they would take 3 to 6 months to exhaust the full quantity in their manufacturing process. Therefore, by then the product shelf life would have expired and therefore, the question of permitting import does not arise. By referring to the legal notice, dated 31.10.2014, issued by the petitioner to the respondents, it is submitted that the petitioner has admitted that M/s.BMC are only "suppliers" and without placing the correct facts and without satisfying the labelling requirements, the petitioner attempts to find fault with the department to state it is a bad interpretation of the statutory Regulations. Further, it is submitted that the guidelines was issued in 2012 and the requirements mentioned therein are minimum labelling requirements and even going by the said guideline, the petitioner's label does not disclose the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on these records, request was made to the fourth respondent, the competent authority under the Act, seeking clearance for the imported consignment. The total quantity of the product imported is 12.5 tones in 500 bags each weighing 25kgs. 11. The foremost requirement to be fulfilled before drawing of samples is to examine as to whether the consignment satisfies the requirement under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations more particularly, Section 25 of the Act read with Regulation 2.2.2:6 or (6), which deals with the labelling requirement. The statute empowers the authorised officer functioning under the Act to refuse to draw samples if the labelling requirement is not satisfied. 12. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court cannot direct the Authority to do a particular act, which the statute does not authorised him to do. The scope of judicial review will be restricted to the decision making process whether there was any arbitrariness in the manner in which the Authorised Officer has acted whether he has disregarded the statutory provisions or failed to follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the manufacturer and the manufacturing unit if these are located at different places and in case the manufacturer is not the packer or bottler, the name and complete address of the packing or bottling unit as the case may be shall be declared on every package of food; (ii) Where an article of food is manufactured or packed or bottled by a person or a company under the written authority of some other manufacturer or company, under his or its brand name, the label shall carry the name and complete address of the manufacturing or packing or bottling unit as the case may be, and also the name and complete address of the manufacturer or the company, for an on whose behalf it is manufactured or packed or bottled. 18. On a reading of the above provision, it makes it clear that the name and complete address of the manufacturer and in case the manufacturer is not the packer, the name and complete address of the packer are to be declared on every package of food if the article of food is manufactured or packed by a person under the written authority of the some other manufacturer under its brand name, the label shall carry the name and complete address of the manufacturing or pack....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Pvt., Ltd., vs. FSSAI (supra). In any event, the decisions in those cases were rendered considering the fact situation arising therefrom, since the dispute is with regard to the labelling requirement facts are very relevant to be considered first. 19. Sofar as the decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Foodlever India Pvt., Ltd. vs., Senior Inspecting Officer, FSSAI, (supra), the product imported was drawn compound chocolate, Singapore and the allegation was that the date of manufacture, date of expiry were not mentioned in the printed format as required under the labelling requirement. Taking into consideration the fact that the label was not affixed along with the container was one of the ground to direct samples to be drawn in the said case. The fact of the said case was clearly distinguishable with that of the facts of the present case and therefore, the decision does not render any assistance to the case of the petitioner. 20. The decision in the case of M/s.Avenue Impex vs., The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import) & Ors., (supra) directions were issued to release the goods by following an order passed by the CESTAT in another connected appeal and goods were re....