2023 (1) TMI 1064 - HC - Customs

Non-clearance of consignment of soyabeans imported by the Petitioner from Mozambique - petitioner has sought to contend that the Food Standards Act, 2006 being a later legislation would prevail over the Environment Protection Act, 1986 - HELD THAT - Considering the larger implications of the issue at hand and that no specific stand of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee and the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change (MoEF CC) in respect of the subject matter is on record, it would be appropriate that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee and the MoEF CC are impleaded in this Petition. Accordingly, we grant leave to the Petitioner to add the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, Ministry of Health Family Welfare and MoEF CC as party respondents. Amendment to be carried out within a period of two days. Re-verification is dispensed with. If the Petitioner will give notice to the added Respondents and file the affidavit of service, stand over to 31 January 2023.

Issues:
1. Dispute over clearance of soyabeans consignment imported from Mozambique by the Petitioner.
2. Interpretation of Import policy regarding genetically modified food and organisms.
3. Conflict between certifications obtained by the Petitioner and requirements under the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
4. Assertion of the Food Standards Act, 2006 over the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
5. Impleadment of relevant authorities in the case.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent Customs Department regarding the clearance of a soyabeans consignment imported from Mozambique. The Customs Department has refused clearance citing that the soyabeans are genetically modified, leading to the Petitioner's grievance.

2. The Customs Department relies on the Import policy, which subjects all imported goods to domestic laws, acts, rules, and regulations applicable to domestically produced goods. Specifically, the Department highlights the requirement for approval by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 for genetically modified food and organisms.

3. The Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that the imported soyabeans are within permissible limits set by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. The Petitioner holds certifications under the Plant Quarantine Order 2003 and asserts that the consignment is not genetically modified according to certifications from Mozambique.

4. An interesting legal argument raised by the Petitioner is the assertion that the Food Standards Act, 2006 should prevail over the Environment Protection Act, 1986 due to being a later legislation. This raises a significant question of statutory interpretation and hierarchy of laws in the context of food safety and import regulations.

5. Recognizing the complexity and larger implications of the case, the Court decides to implead the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, and the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change as party respondents. This decision aims to ensure all relevant authorities are involved in the proceedings to address the issues comprehensively and make an informed decision.

This detailed analysis outlines the core issues, legal arguments, and the Court's decision to involve additional authorities for a thorough examination of the case.

← Previous Next →