2014 (8) TMI 1038 - HC - Customs

Import of YO-MIX 305 LYO 50 DCU which is a blend of strains of lactic acid bacteria, that is used for direct vat inoculation into milk for preparing yogurt and fermented milk products. - FSSI refused to give on the ground that List of Ingredients was not mentioned on the label. - appelalnt claimed that the products are for industrial use and not for retail sale - Held that - it is apparent that even though the Regulation 2.2.2 2 of the Labelling Regulations is not applicable, the labelling of the goods in question provides sufficient information. In addition, the petitioner has also furnished the detailed product description of the goods and has also specifically provided the composition, properties, physical/chemical specifications as well as microbiological specifications. This information is sufficient for the FSSAI to test whether the goods in question conform to its description. Accordingly, the impugned communication is set aside and the FSSAI is directed to examine the goods in question and issue a No-objection certificate within a period of 10 days from today, if the goods are found to be in conformity with their description as available on the package, as well as the product description sheet provided by the petitioner.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Regulation 2.2.2:2 of the Labelling Regulations to the imported goods.
2. Compliance of the imported goods with the statutory requirements of the FSS Act.
3. Whether the goods are classified as pre-packaged or pre-packed food.
4. Adequacy of the labelling on the imported goods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Regulation 2.2.2:2 of the Labelling Regulations to the Imported Goods:
The petitioner challenged the refusal to grant a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) for their imported consignment on the grounds that it did not comply with Regulation 2.2.2:2 of the Labelling Regulations. The court examined whether this regulation, which mandates specific labelling requirements, applied to the goods in question. The court concluded that Regulation 2.2.2:2 is applicable to "pre-packaged" foods, defined as food ready for sale to consumers for personal needs. The goods in question, being industrial-use lactic acid bacteria strains for yogurt production, do not fall under this definition as they are not meant for direct human consumption but for industrial use.

2. Compliance of the Imported Goods with the Statutory Requirements of the FSS Act:
The court referred to Section 23 of the FSS Act, which mandates that packaged food products be labelled as specified by regulations. The definition of "food" under the FSS Act is broad, encompassing any substance intended for human consumption, including those used in food preparation. The imported lactic acid bacteria strains, used in yogurt production, fall within this definition. However, since these goods are not for direct consumption, they are not subject to the labelling requirements for pre-packaged foods under Regulation 2.2.2:2.

3. Whether the Goods are Classified as Pre-packaged or Pre-packed Food:
The court determined that the goods in question are not pre-packaged or pre-packed food as defined under the Labelling Regulations. The definition of pre-packaged food implies readiness for sale to consumers for personal needs. The court clarified that the term "consumer" refers to individuals and families purchasing food for personal consumption, excluding industrial users. Therefore, the goods, intended for industrial use in yogurt production, do not meet the criteria for pre-packaged food.

4. Adequacy of the Labelling on the Imported Goods:
The court assessed whether the labelling on the imported goods was otherwise deficient. The packaging included essential information such as the name of the product, the date of manufacture, the best before date, the name and address of the manufacturer, the country of origin, and the net weight. Although the name and address of the importer were not printed, the court found that the labelling provided sufficient information for the FSSAI to assess the product's safety. The court noted that the goods substantially complied with the minimum labelling requirements specified by FSSAI guidelines for wholesale packages.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned communication rejecting the petitioner's appeal and directed the FSSAI to examine the goods and issue a No-Objection Certificate within ten days if the goods conformed to their description. The petition was allowed, and each party was left to bear its own costs.

← Previous Next →