2014 (10) TMI 844 - HC - Indian Laws

Detention of imported betel nuts at Cochin Port - Rejection of samples - on the ground that samples do not conform to the standards specified under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short, the FSS Act ) - Held that - Unable to accept the arguments advanced by the petitioners that betel nuts cannot be considered as food . The definition of food is expansive in Section 3(j) which includes any type of substance whether processed or unprocessed, which ultimately is intended for human consumption would attract the meaning of food within clause (j) of Section 3. The meaning of food do not depend upon immediate or proximate use of the substance for human consumption. The only criteria to determine a substance is food or not is whether the substance is intended for human consumption or not. The ultimate purpose must be for human consumption. Therefore, any substance which is intended for human consumption would fall within the definition of food as defined under the FSS Act. Betel nut cannot be a dry fruit coming under the standards prescribed under PFA Act and further held that betel nuts imported cannot be subjected to the tests for the standards prescribed for dry fruits and nuts. Also of the view that though Al Marwa s case (2007 (1) TMI 554 - Kerala High Court ) 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. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is of the view that since the goods have been allowed to be released by interim orders of this Court, no further reliefs are required in these writ petitions.

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Definition of "food" under Section 3(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act).
2. Absence of specific standards for betel nuts under the FSS Act.
3. Authority of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to detain imported goods.
4. Applicability of international standards and agreements in the absence of domestic standards.
5. Constitutional duty of the State to protect human life from contaminated or adulterated food.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis

1. Definition of "food" under Section 3(1) of the FSS Act:
The petitioners argued that betel nuts do not fall under the definition of "food" as per Section 3(j) of the FSS Act. They relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Gokul Refoils Solvents Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that unless an item is intended for immediate human consumption, it cannot be considered "food". However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the definition of "food" in Section 3(j) is expansive and includes any substance intended for human consumption, whether processed or unprocessed. The court emphasized that the ultimate purpose of the substance must be for human consumption to qualify as "food".

2. Absence of specific standards for betel nuts under the FSS Act:
The petitioners contended that there are no specific standards for betel nuts under the FSS Act. The court acknowledged this but clarified that betel nuts do not fall within the category of "nuts and raisins" as prescribed under Regulation 2.3.47 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. The court applied the rule of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis to conclude that betel nuts form a different class from dry fruits and nuts, and therefore, the standards prescribed for dry fruits and nuts do not apply to betel nuts.

3. Authority of the FSSAI to detain imported goods:
The court noted that the FSSAI has the authority to detain goods that are found unfit for human consumption, even if specific standards are not prescribed under the FSS Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, which emphasized the State's duty to protect public health under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court held that in the absence of specific standards, the FSSAI can take precautionary measures to prevent the import of contaminated or adulterated food articles.

4. Applicability of international standards and agreements:
The court highlighted the relevance of international standards and agreements, such as the Codex Alimentarius and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS Agreement). It stated that in the absence of specific domestic standards, the FSSAI should follow the standards set by the Codex Alimentarius. The court also noted that the SPS Agreement permits the government to adopt precautionary measures in cases where scientific evidence is insufficient, aligning with the principles established in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan.

5. Constitutional duty of the State to protect human life:
The court reiterated the State's constitutional duty to protect human life from potential dangers posed by contaminated or adulterated food. It emphasized that the authorities must ensure that imported goods, even after undergoing processing, are fit for human consumption. If the authorities determine that the goods cannot be made fit for human consumption, they have the right to detain or re-export the goods.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that since the goods had already been released by interim orders, no further relief was required. The petitions were disposed of, and the court emphasized the importance of safeguarding public health and adhering to international standards in the absence of specific domestic regulations.