2015 (3) TMI 1178 - HC - Customs

Import of Active Dry Yeast - does not meet the labelling requirement under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 hence, samples could not be drawn - both Expiry Date and Best Before Date are mentioned as one and the same in wholesale package which should be different and clearly specified as per the guidelines issued by the FSSAI - Petitioner contended that as per Regulations, 2011 it is sufficient that the date of manufacture and the best before date is given and that the said regulation was complied with and hence, refusing to draw the samples is arbitrary. Held that - since there is a distinction between best before date and expiry date , the manufacturer cannot be allowed to mention with same date. As regards the contention of the petitioner there is no regulation or provision mandates that the best before date and expiry date should be different and hence, there shall not be any objection in declaring the expiry date same as that of best before date , is concerned, the said contention is misconceived and untenable since merely because there is no specific provision or regulation prescribing requirement of mentioning both dates differently, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of it for the purpose of mentioning the dates as per his whims and fancies in order to get the maximum marketable period, i.e. till the date of expiry by mentioning that the product will be best till its expiry. It is settled law that while interpreting a statute, we should not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. Any dificiency in the provision of the Act or regulations itself does not give a right to the party to invoke the same to suit his claim or his puprose which, on its result, would have a considerable negative impact on others. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in Badsha versus Urmila Badshah Godse and another 2013 (10) TMI 1409 - SUPREME COURT . Purpose of labelling is not to be ascertained by any one for diluting the rigorous of the regulations and importing the concept of substantial compliance therewith. It is not that validity of any provision is in issue. Strict compliance principle seems to be the requirements of the regulations dictated by public interest that must prevail over any private interest of an importer. So, the Authorized Officer was fully justified in not taking samples of the articles of food for the NOC purpose on the ground that the label on the product did not fulfil requirement of the Regulations, 2011. In fact, there is no impediment under the Regulations, 2011 for the petitioner either to mention best before date or expiry date, however, when he prefers to mention both, he has to fulfill the requirement that both dates should be different and mentioned specifically. - Decided against the petitioner

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulations, 2011.
2. Distinction between 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date'.
3. Validity of FSSAI guidelines dated 24.01.2013.
4. Petitioner's previous non-compliance and undertaking.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulations, 2011:
The petitioner imported Active Dry Yeast, which was rejected by the Customs Department for non-compliance with the labelling requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The impugned order stated that the product did not meet the labelling requirement as both 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date' were mentioned as the same, i.e., 30.04.2016. The petitioner argued that as per Regulation 2.2.9 of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulations, 2011, it was sufficient to provide the date of manufacture and the best before date, which was complied with. The court, however, found that the labelling did not meet the requirements as it misled consumers regarding the product's quality and safety.

2. Distinction between 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date':
The court elaborated on the definitions provided in the Regulations, 2011. 'Best Before Date' signifies the period during which the food remains marketable and retains specific qualities, while 'Expiry Date' indicates the end of the period after which the food is not expected to have the quality and safety attributes normally expected by consumers. The court emphasized that 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date' serve different purposes and should not be the same. The court noted that allowing both dates to be the same would mislead consumers into believing the product would maintain its best quality until the expiry date, which is not practical.

3. Validity of FSSAI guidelines dated 24.01.2013:
The petitioner contended that the guidelines issued by FSSAI, which required 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date' to be different, had no statutory force and exceeded the scope of the Regulations. The court, however, upheld the guidelines, stating that they were issued to ensure public interest and consumer safety. The court referenced several judgments to support the principle that strict compliance with regulations is necessary to prevent misleading consumers.

4. Petitioner's previous non-compliance and undertaking:
The court noted that the petitioner had previously violated the same regulation in 2013 but was granted a one-time relaxation by FSSAI upon providing an undertaking to comply with the requirements in future consignments. The court found that the petitioner, having availed of the relaxation, was estopped from challenging the impugned order and had acted contrary to the undertaking. The court criticized the petitioner's attitude and imposed costs for the violation.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the FSSAI guidelines and emphasizing the importance of clear and distinct labelling for 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date'. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 30,000, with specific instructions for the allocation of the amount if not paid within the stipulated time. The court's decision reinforced the need for strict adherence to food safety regulations to protect consumer interests.