2018 (2) TMI 1499 - HC - Customs

Release of imported seized goods - Desiccated coconut fine grade - goods have been expired long back - imported products were expired, and unfit for human consumption - refusal to draw samples on the ground that the consignment does not satisfy the labelling requirement Held that - the labels contained the details of the supplier, receiver, product, batch number, weight, date of production and expiry date. The main aspect to be noted herein is that the goods imported from Malaysia got expired long back in the year May 2015 itself, the same cannot be used for human consumption. The raw materials imported is used for manufacturing chocolates which is consumed mostly by children. At this time, even if the goods are handed over to the appellant, the same cannot be used for manufacturing purposes, as the shell life of the raw materials is already expired. From the available records, it is seen that the appellant in their representation dated 23.07.2014 addressed to the fourth respondent have admitted that they would require 3 to 6 months to exhaust the total quantity of goods imported. - there is violation in the import process and the learned single judge has rightly taken note of the regulations and the import process while passing the order. If at all any request is made by the appellant for waiver of demurrage charges, the same may be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against rejection order for import consignment due to labelling requirements violation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant/petitioner challenged the rejection order issued by the fourth respondent, claiming it violated their rights under the Constitution of India. The consignment in question was 12.5 tonnes of Desiccated Coconut Fine Grade imported from Malaysia. The rejection was based on incomplete labelling as per Regulation 2.2.2:6.(i). The petitioner sought a personal hearing and sent representations for reconsideration, followed by a legal notice. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned single judge.

2. The appellant argued in the writ appeal that the non-mentioning of the manufacturer's address was unfounded as per FSSAI guidelines. They contended that the responsibility accepted by the appellant should have been considered, and the labeling issue was baseless as they had provided necessary information. The supplier's status as a manufacturer was questioned by the respondents, who highlighted the violation of regulations in the consignment.

3. The learned single judge extensively discussed the regulations, emphasizing the importance of disclosing the manufacturer's complete address on food packaging. It was clarified that M/s.BMC was not the manufacturer, and the labeling requirement was not satisfied. The judge referenced a Calcutta High Court decision supporting strict compliance with regulations. The records showed the consignment had expired, making it unsuitable for use. The judge upheld the rejection order, allowing for re-export of the goods and consideration of demurrage charges waiver upon request.

4. The writ appeal was disposed of with no costs, maintaining the decision of the learned single judge. The judgment highlighted the violation in the import process and the importance of adhering to labeling regulations for public health and safety. The appellant was given the option for re-exporting the expired goods, with a possibility of waiver for demurrage charges upon request and consideration by the respondents.