2015 (3) TMI 1312 - HC - Indian Laws

Refusal to draw samples for analysis - it was alleged that the consignment does not satisfy the labelling requirement under Regulation 2.2.2 6(i) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packing and Labelling) Regulation, 2011 - whether the consignment satisfies the requirement under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations more particularly, Section 25 of the Act read with Regulation 2.2.2 6 or (6), which deals with the labelling requirement? Held that - Before drawing samples, the Act empowers authorised officer to satisfy himself as to whether the labelling requirements as provided under the Regulation are fulfilled. It is only after due satisfaction of the requirements under the Regulation, samples will be drawn. M/s.BMC is only a supplier and he is not a manufacturer . The supplier is not stationed in the country where the product is said to have been manufactured, except to state that the Port of loading is Indonesia, the name and address of the manufacturer has been withheld and not furnished. The name and complete address of the manufacturer and in case the manufacturer is not the packer, the name and complete address of the packer are to be declared on every package of food if the article of food is manufactured or packed by a person under the written authority of the some other manufacturer under its brand name, the label shall carry the name and complete address of the manufacturing or packing unit as the case may be and also the name of complete address of the manufacturer or the company for and on whose behalf it is manufactured or packed or bottled. The consignor/exporter from Malaysia, M/s.BMC is not the manufacturer . Therefore, if it is the case of the supplier that they have been authorised by the manufacturer to manufacture or pack the product, then the name of the manufacturer should have been disclosed in the packing. Mere mention that it is a product of the Indonesia does not satisfy the labelling requirement. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, supplier is not the manufacturer , since they have admitted that M/s.BMC is only a supplier . If that be the case, the name and full details of the manufacturer was bound to be disclosed. This is a very vital requirements, since the product imported is a food product having shelf life only till May 2015. In such circumstances, no error can be attributed to the impugned rejection report issued by the respondent. Reliance placed in the decision of the Hon ble Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India vs., Heartland Trading Company Pvt Ltd., 2014 (9) TMI 1032 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT , wherein the Hon ble Division Bench pointed out that the purpose of labelling is not to be ascertained by any one for diluting the rigours of the regulations and importing the concept of substantial compliance therewith and 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. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Labelling Requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
2. Principles of Natural Justice.
3. Interpretation of "Manufacturer" under Section 3(zd) of the Act.
4. Judicial Review and Scope under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Relevance of Previous Imports and Past Practices.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Labelling Requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006:
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, imported 12.5 tonnes of "Desiccated Coconut Fine Grade" from Malaysia. Upon inspection, the fourth respondent refused to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) due to non-compliance with labelling requirements under Regulation 2.2.2:6(i) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packing and Labelling) Regulation, 2011. The label did not include the complete address of the manufacturer/packer, which is a mandatory requirement. The petitioner's argument that the supplier's name and the product's origin (Indonesia) sufficed was rejected. The court emphasized that the name and complete address of the manufacturer must be declared on every package as per the Regulation.

2. Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner contended that the impugned communication was an internal one, and no notice was issued to them, violating principles of natural justice. The court found no specific allegations from the petitioner on how they were disadvantaged or how the Authorized Officer failed to adhere to the procedure under the Regulations. The court noted that the applications for clearance were considered, and inspection was conducted as per the Act.

3. Interpretation of "Manufacturer" under Section 3(zd) of the Act:
The petitioner argued that their supplier falls within the definition of "Manufacturer" under Section 3(zd) of the Act, which includes any person who packs and labels food for sale. However, the court clarified that M/s. BMC, the supplier, is not a manufacturer but merely a supplier. The court emphasized that the name and complete address of the manufacturer must be disclosed on the packaging, and the supplier's details alone do not satisfy this requirement.

4. Judicial Review and Scope under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The court highlighted that under Article 226, it cannot direct authorities to act contrary to statutory provisions. The scope of judicial review is limited to examining whether there was any arbitrariness in the decision-making process, whether statutory provisions were disregarded, or whether the mandatory procedure was not followed. The court found no arbitrariness or procedural lapses in the actions of the Authorized Officer.

5. Relevance of Previous Imports and Past Practices:
The petitioner referred to previous imports through other ports where similar products were permitted with the same packaging. The court dismissed this argument, stating that past illegality cannot justify current non-compliance. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits, and compliance with current regulations is mandatory. The court also noted that the shelf life of the product would expire by May 2015, making the release of the consignment impractical.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the respondent's decision to refuse the NOC due to non-compliance with labelling requirements. The court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with food safety regulations, especially for products intended for human consumption. The petitioner was advised to request re-export, which the fifth respondent would consider in accordance with the law.