2014 (9) TMI 1032 - HC - Customs

Import of edible grade refined oils - need for obtaning product approval for canola oil from FSSAI - 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. - refined oils called Heartland Oliveola Canola Oil Mixture of Canola Oil & Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Heartland Canola Oil both manufactured by one Richardson Oilseed Limited of Canada. Held that - the authorised officer was fully justified in not taking samples of the articles of food for the NOC purpose on the grounds that the labels on the articles did not fulfil several mandatory requirements of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. Heartland was not entitled to claim an enforceable right to rectify the labelling deficiencies saying that the government had permitted import of the oils; and that the Food Authority officials had previously granted NOC to others who imported the oils and similar oils, still being sold in the market. Rectification of a labelling deficiency not permissible under any law cannot be ordered by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226; and in any case, illegal grant of NOC to any other importer for the same articles of food cannot entitle a subsequent importer to seek NOC. An order for perpetuation of an illegality cannot be passed by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226. - Decided against the respondents / imports.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the labels on the articles of food imported by Heartland suffered from any deficiency.
2. If the labels suffered from any deficiency, whether the deficiency was rectifiable and could be rectified by Heartland.
3. 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.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the labels on the articles of food imported by Heartland suffered from any deficiency:
The court examined whether the labels on the imported edible oils complied with the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. The deputy director in his decisions dated February 6, 2014, and March 27, 2014, identified several labelling deficiencies. These included the absence of ingredient information, improper declarations like "No Cholesterol" and "No Trans Fat," and the lack of mandatory labels such as "Imported Refined Rapeseed Oil" and "Blended Edible Vegetable Oil." The court found that every labelling deficiency mentioned by the deputy director was a real labelling deficiency detected by the authorised officer.

2. If the labels suffered from any deficiency, whether the deficiency was rectifiable and could be rectified by Heartland:
Heartland contended that it should be allowed to rectify the deficiencies by affixing new labels. However, the deputy director and the court held that no law entitled Heartland to rectify the deficiencies in this manner. The court emphasized that the articles could be re-labelled, if at all, only by their Canadian manufacturer. The court also noted that the purpose of labelling is to ensure strict compliance with the regulations, dictated by public interest, which must prevail over any private interest of an importer.

3. 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:
Heartland argued that since the Food Authority had previously granted NOCs to other importers of the same oils, it was entitled to an NOC. The court rejected this argument, stating that any previous illegal grant of NOC to any importer cannot create a right to seek repetition of the illegality. The court emphasized that rectification of a labelling deficiency not permissible under any law cannot be ordered by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226, and any illegal grant of NOC to another importer does not entitle a subsequent importer to seek NOC.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the single Judge erred in not examining the correctness of the several specific reasons given by the deputy director and allowing the WP on an impermissible basis. The MAT was allowed, the decision of the single Judge was set aside, and the WP was dismissed. The court stressed that strict compliance with the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011, is mandatory and cannot be diluted by the High Court under Article 226.