2018 (11) TMI 1535 - HC - Customs

Import of Chocolates - Issuance of NOC under the FSSAI Act, 2006 and the Regulations made there under for the cargo covered under the Bill of Entry No 6431998 dated 18.05.2018 - direction to the second respondent to depute officers for affixing new labels by deleting the word compound in the carton boxes and to mention contains vegetable oils in addition to cocoa butter over the boxes of the consignment. Held that - By no stretch of imagination, it can be claimed that the mentioning of the product description as compound chocolates is in any way aimed at deceiving/hoodwinking the consumers. In fact the consignment fall under the group filled chocolates and the same was not disputed. The Also the petitioner is willing to re-label the cartons as mere chocolates . The description chocolate is a very generic term under the FSS Regulations. It recognizes the many sub classifications of chocolates. The respondents have failed to make out a case to conclude that the choice of nomenclature defies the standards mandated under the FSS Act, 2006 and the Regulations made there under - Thus, the strict labelling requirement in respect of objection 1 in the second review order, even if it is there, is curable. Interestingly, the imported chocolates has not been tested. Only visual examination was conducted. Apparently, the presence and absence of ingredients and compliance requirements were discussed by all the parties only on the basis of the declarations of the petitioner. The ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to affix suitable labels and issue necessary NOC upon affixing the labels so required by the respondents within two weeks time - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with FSSAI regulations regarding product labeling and standards.
2. Rejection of consignment based on discrepancies in labeling and ingredients.
3. Petitioner's request to re-label the consignment to meet statutory requirements.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with FSSAI regulations regarding product labeling and standards:
The petitioner filed a Bill of Entry for importing chocolates, which was referred to FSSAI for a No Objection Certificate (NOC). The consignment was inspected, and FSSAI raised queries that were addressed by the petitioner. However, FSSAI rejected the consignment based on four findings:
- The name "compounded chocolates" on the cartons did not conform to the standard "chocolates" as per Regulation 2.7.4.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Addictives) Fourth Amendment Regulations, 2017.
- The product did not contain cocoa butter, contrary to Regulation 2.7.4.1.
- The addition of vegetable fats was not mentioned on the label, as required by Regulation 2.7.4.6.
- The ingredient "demineralized whey powder" was not listed in Regulation 2.7.4.1 for chocolates.

2. Rejection of consignment based on discrepancies in labeling and ingredients:
The petitioner filed a review application, which was rejected, confirming the initial findings. A second appeal was also filed, emphasizing the perishability of the chocolates and the need for early clearance. The petitioner argued that the Bill of Entry should be read along with the submitted documents, and the chocolates met the definition under Regulation 2.7.4.4. The second review authority rejected the consignment on two grounds:
- The product name "compound chocolates" did not conform to Regulation 2.7.4.
- The products contained hydrogenated vegetable oils, which are not permitted under Regulation 2.7.4.

3. Petitioner's request to re-label the consignment to meet statutory requirements:
The petitioner contended that the description "compound chocolates" was secondary packaging and was willing to re-label it as "chocolates." The court found that the description "compound chocolates" did not deceive consumers and fell under the group "filled chocolates." The court held that the strict labeling requirement was curable.

Regarding the presence of hydrogenated vegetable oils, the court noted that the chocolates had not been tested, and the objection was based on visual inspection. The petitioner was willing to affix labels mentioning the presence of vegetable fats, which would comply with statutory requirements.

Conclusion:
The court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to affix suitable labels to cure the objections and issue the necessary NOC within two weeks. The writ petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.