2014 (10) TMI 832 - HC - Customs

Import of raw ungarbled form of Areca Nuts (Betel-Nuts) - petition for release consignment - whether food or not - Revenue insisted that petitioner must obtain a test certificate from the second respondent under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations. - Held that - Thus, by comparing the definition of food under Section 2(j) of the Food Safety Act with that of Section 2(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it is evident that the word food under the provision of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is a very general term and meant to include any article is used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water. The petitioner himself had applied under the Food Inspection Clearance System, pursuant to which the samples were drawn and found to not meet the standards prescribed and also on being referred to the Referral Laboratory at Mysore at the instance of the petitioner, have miserably failed to make out any case for granting the relief sought for in this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the third respondent was justified in directing the petitioner to obtain a no objection certificate (NOC) from the second respondent under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
2. Applicability of the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Al Marwa Traders v. Assistant Commissioner of Imports to the petitioner's case.
3. Compliance with standards laid down under the Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification for NOC Requirement:
The petitioner contested the necessity of obtaining a NOC from the second respondent, arguing that the imported betel-nuts were in their raw ungarbled form and not intended for direct human consumption. The petitioner claimed that the standard practice was to subject the consignment to a Plant Quarantine test as per the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003, and not the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations. However, the court noted that the petitioner had applied through the Food Inspection Clearance System (FICS), which necessitated testing the samples against the standards laid down under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The samples failed to meet these standards, as confirmed by both the notified Laboratory and the Referral Laboratory in Mysore. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner could not demand the clearance of the consignment without the NOC, as the product did not conform to the statutory requirements.

2. Applicability of Kerala High Court Decision:
The petitioner relied on the Kerala High Court's decision in Al Marwa Traders v. Assistant Commissioner of Imports, which held that betel-nuts were not liable to be tested under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. However, the court distinguished this case, noting that the decision was rendered under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which has since been repealed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The court emphasized the marked distinction between the definitions of 'food' and 'primary food' under the two statutes. The Food Safety and Standards Act has a broader definition, including any substance intended for human consumption, whether processed or unprocessed. Therefore, the Kerala High Court's decision could not be applied to the present case.

3. Compliance with Food Safety Standards:
The court examined the factual situation and the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner's consignment was tested and found non-compliant with the standards specified under the Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. The initial laboratory report and the subsequent referral report from Mysore both indicated that the samples did not meet the prescribed standards, showing issues like mould growth and excessive damaged/discoloured units. The court concluded that the petitioner's consignment did not conform to the statutory standards, thereby justifying the requirement for a NOC from the Food Safety Authority.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a case for granting the relief sought. The petitioner's reliance on the Kerala High Court decision was found inapplicable due to the differences in statutory definitions and the repeal of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The court affirmed the necessity of obtaining a NOC from the second respondent, given the non-compliance of the consignment with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.