2015 (12) TMI 1147 - HC - Customs

Import of Erythritol - Whether it is only pre-packaged food required to be labelled as per the Food Safety and Standards (packaging and Labeling) Regulations, 2011 but also any kind of food - Rejection of the request of the petitioner for drawing the samples from the consignment for analysis - Held that - Goods in question namely, Erythritol whether it is a food or food additive is admittedly a food product and finally eatable, therefore, even the remote argument of the petitioner that the product of the petitioner are indeed meant for retail as well as industrial sale, hence, they need not be labelled, is highly unacceptable as per the regulation 2.2.2 of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 which states that every package of food shall carry the information on the label as required by the regulation, therefore, it is not only for the pre packaged food but also all kinds of foods whether it is going to be sent to retail outlet or directly to the market for consumption, the labelling regulations will apply. As a matter of fact, all goods are likely to perish, hence, to avoid undue delay in clearance that may result in degradation of the product making it useless of the food item, labelling has been made mandatory, therefore, the contention advanced by the petitioner that the goods in question Erythritol is used as a food additive in manufacture of the foods and cannot be termed as item which meets the personal needs of the consumers, is liable to be rejected outright, therefore, the impugned order rejecting the request for drawing of sample from the consignment for analysis cannot be interfered with. When the petitioner failed to affix necessary label on the imported goods with all details, namely, Best before use , Use by date , and date of manufacture, it is not known whether the goods in question is having the life time for further future use, therefore, this Court finding that the product in question namely, Erythritol has miserably failed to satisfy the labelling requirements, is not able to see any merits in this writ petition, hence, the same fails and is dismissed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 to the imported goods (Erythritol).
2. Compliance of labelling requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
3. Whether Erythritol as a food additive requires labelling.
4. Petitioner's request to affix necessary labels post-import for testing.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 to the imported goods (Erythritol):

The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 06.01.2015, which rejected their request for sample testing of Erythritol, arguing that the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 do not apply to raw materials used in manufacturing artificial sweeteners. The petitioner contended that Erythritol is a food additive meant for industrial use, not direct consumption, and thus should be exempt from these regulations. However, the respondent maintained that Erythritol, being a food additive, falls under the definition of food as per Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and must comply with labelling requirements.

2. Compliance of labelling requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006:

The court examined Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which mandates that no person shall manufacture, distribute, sell, or expose for sale any packaged food products that are not marked and labelled as specified by regulations. The court also referred to Regulation 2.2.2.9 and 2.2.2.10 of the Labelling Regulations, which require the date of manufacture or packing and the 'Best Before' date to be clearly indicated on the label. The petitioner failed to provide these details on the non-removable label, which is mandatory for compliance.

3. Whether Erythritol as a food additive requires labelling:

The petitioner argued that Erythritol, being used as a food additive in manufacturing artificial sweeteners, should not be classified as an item for direct consumer needs and thus should be exempt from labelling requirements. However, the court clarified that Erythritol, whether as a food or food additive, is ultimately consumed as food by consumers. Therefore, it falls within the definition of pre-packaged or pre-packed food, making labelling regulations applicable. The court cited Section 3(j) and 3(k) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which define food and food additives, respectively, to support this conclusion.

4. Petitioner's request to affix necessary labels post-import for testing:

The petitioner requested permission to affix the necessary labels post-import, arguing that all required details were available in the imported documents. However, the court rejected this request, emphasizing the importance of labelling at the time of import to ascertain the product's shelf life and ensure compliance with safety standards. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the writ petition and closing the related miscellaneous petition.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the labelling regulations under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the associated regulations are applicable to Erythritol, a food additive. The petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory labelling requirements, and their request to affix labels post-import was not acceptable. The writ petition was dismissed, reinforcing the necessity of strict adherence to food safety and labelling standards.