9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Petitioner seeking to quash Exts. P6 and P7 regarding non-conformity of wet dates to PFA Act standards, contention on wet dates standard not prescribed, challenge on sampling method by customs authorities.
Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenges the informing of non-conformity of wet dates to PFA Act standards through Exts. P6 and P7. Petitioner argues that wet dates standard is not prescribed under the PFA Act, questioning the competence of the analysis report from the Central Food Laboratory. Additionally, petitioner disputes the sampling method employed by customs authorities, claiming that samples were not representative as they were drawn from only one or two bags out of over 7000 bags. 2. Regarding the competence of the Central Food Laboratory to analyze wet dates, it is noted that the Customs Manual mandates testing by the Laboratory in the absence of Port Health Officers. Despite customs authorities not holding the powers of a Food Inspector under the PFA Act, they are obligated to follow the statutory requirement of testing food items at the Central Food Laboratory. Thus, the petitioner's argument against the jurisdiction of customs authorities to forward samples for testing is dismissed. 3. The petitioner's objection to the sampling method used by respondents is acknowledged. It is observed that out of the 7000 bags imported, samples were drawn from only one or two bags, lacking representativeness. In light of this, the court directs the respondents to draw a representative sample of the wet dates based on the judgment, to be analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory or an authorized laboratory as per the Customs Manual. Subsequently, the respondents will make a decision on the petitioner's cargo clearance claim, thereby disposing of the writ petition. Conclusion: The court orders the drawing of a representative sample for analysis to address the petitioner's concerns regarding the non-conformity of wet dates and the sampling method employed by customs authorities.
|
