9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etail 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 - Decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry date, product description, lot number and manufacturer details. However, in spite of the said representation, there was no response from the said official, therefore, they submitted a representation dated 05.12.2014 to the FSSAI Headquarters at New Delhi. The first respondent, vide the impugned order dated 06.01.2015, refused the request made by the petitioner for testing of the samples imported on the ground that the date of manufacture, best before date and name and address of the manufacturer are not mentioned on the label which is mandatory. Thus, the present writ petition with a prayer cited supra. 3. Assailing the impugned order passed by the first respondent, Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the goods in question, namely, 'Erythritol' is a sugar alcohol, therefore, by referring to Section 3(k) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (in short Act ), he further submitted that the goods are admittedly not meant for direct consumption, but, the same are intended for industrial use in manufacturing of the goods. A plain reading of the definition of the expression 'Food Additive' indicates that the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of India and another (CDJ 2014 DHC 2063) to contend that the provisions of the Labelling Regulations are inapplicable to food additives which are meant for industrial use. With these submissions, he sought for setting aside the impugned order. 6. Per contra, Mr. K. Surendranath, learned Standing counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the product of the petitioner Company, being a food additive, is also covered under the definition of food as per Section 3(j) of the Act, therefore, the product, being admittedly food additive, is a food product in itself. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the documents submitted by the petitioner as well as the contents on the label do not state that the products are meant for industrial use only and there is no disclaimer on the label barring retail sale of the product, therefore, the products of the petitioner meant for retail as well as industrial sale and thus the contention of the petitioner that the same are meant solely for industrial use are without any merit. It is further submitted that the product in question within the definition of 'food additive' cannot have any exemption and therefore, the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duct in question did not contain the label with the required declaration as per the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (packaging and Labeling) Regulations, 2011 and that these defects were non rectifiable, whereas the case of the petitioner is, imported goods contain a label and specifies the lot number, net weight and the name of the manufacturer. The imported documents filed along with the bill of entry in particular the certificate of origin and the certificate of analysis contain the details such as, the manufacturing date, expiry date, product description, lot number and manufacturer details, therefore, the samples imported could be sent for testing. In this regard, it is necessary to extract Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 because Section 23 of the Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, distributing, selling or exposing for sale or dispatch of any packaged food product which are not marked and labelled in the manner as specified by the regulations. ''23. Packaging and labelling of foods.(1) No person shall manufacture, distribute, sell or expose for sale or despatch or deliver to any agent or broker for the purpose of sale, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mely:-- BEST BEFORE...............MONTHS AND YEAR OR BEST BEFORE............MONTHS FROM PACKAGING OR BEST BEFORE............MONTHS FROM MANUFACTURE 11. In the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner that the imported documents filed along with the Bill of Entry in particular, the certificate of origin and the certificate of analysis which contain the details such as manufacturing date, expiry date, product description, the above regulations are perused. A plain reading of the aforequoted regulations clearly indicates that it is mandatory for a label to indicate the date of manufacture or packing of the commodity and even where the 'best before or use by date' is mentioned on the label, the date of manufacturing or the month and year of manufacturing is necessary depending upon whether the best before date is more than three months or less than three months. 12. As a matter of fact, it is not the case of the petitioner that the date of manufacture or packing of the commodity are mentioned on the non-removable label which are mandatory as per the Regulations 2.2.2.9 and 2.2.2.10. Whileso, merely saying that the imported documents file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imals unless they are prepared or processed for placing on the market for human consumption, plants, prior to harvesting, drugs and medicinal products, cosmetics, narcotic or psychotropic substances: Provided that the Central Government may declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, any other article as food for the purposes of this Act having regards to its use, nature, substance or quality; 3(k) food additive means any substance not normally consumed as a food by itself or used as a typical ingredient of the food, whether or not it has nutritive value, the intentional addition of which to food for a technological (including organoleptic) purpose in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport or holding of such food results, or may be reasonably expected to result (directly or indirectly), in it or its by-products becoming a component of or otherwise affecting the characteristics of such food but does not include contaminants or substances added to food for maintaining or improving nutritional qualities. 15. A close reading of the above provision clearly shows that the goods in question namely, 'Erythritol' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
