2013 (6) TMI 578 - HC - Customs

Import of Cottonseed Oil of Edible Grade - food safety - human consumption - reprocessed material after refinement was found to have Iodine content of 97, which is less by 1 as prescribed under the Rules. - Held that - the sole intention of the earlier order of this Court was to see that the consignment in question is not released so long as it does not meet the standard prescribed by the Rules, 1955, on the basis of testing by that particular Laboratory. In such circumstances, if on refinement on the first occasion, the petitioner s reprocessed goods could not pass the said standard, another opportunity should be given to the petitioner for further reprocessing, so that on such further reprocessing the consignment can be brought within the norms prescribed under the Rules. Further opportunity given to the petitioner for reprocessing the material further so as to bring it within the norms laid down under the Rules and to present the sample for further examination by the said Laboratory. In other words, so long the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, will not clear the material on such test after further processing, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.) Authority will not release the goods for the purpose of human consumption. The petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to further reprocess the material and to present the sample on such reprocessing for the purpose of testing.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Central Food Laboratory on Iodine Value of Cottonseed Oil, Compliance with Food Adulteration Rules, Previous court order for reprocessing and testing at Central Food Laboratory.

Analysis:

The writ-petitioner, an importer of "Cottonseed Oil of Edible Grade," challenged an order by the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, regarding the Iodine Value of the material after refinement. The Laboratory found the Iodine content to be 97, below the prescribed range of 98-112 under the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. However, another laboratory found the Iodine Value to be within the permissible range. The petitioner sought to quash the Central Food Laboratory's order based on the report from the second laboratory.

In a previous case involving the same material, a Division Bench of the Court had directed reprocessing of a specific quantity of imported cargo and testing at the Central Food Laboratory. The current judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the previous court order, which mandated testing at the Central Food Laboratory to determine compliance with the standards set by the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The judgment highlighted that the results from a different laboratory cannot override the findings of the Central Food Laboratory as per the court's specific directive.

Acknowledging the petitioner's argument that the intent of the previous court order was to ensure compliance with the prescribed standards, the Court granted the petitioner another opportunity for further reprocessing to meet the required norms. The judgment allowed the petitioner to present the reprocessed sample for testing at the Central Food Laboratory until the material met the specified standards. Until clearance by the Central Food Laboratory, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.) Authority was instructed not to release the goods for human consumption, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the testing process at the designated laboratory.

The Court directed the D.R.I. Authority to provide necessary assistance for the further reprocessing of the material within the time frame specified in the previous order. The Special Civil Application was disposed of with the order for further reprocessing and testing at the Central Food Laboratory, without imposing any costs on the parties involved.