9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J.) The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge dated 25.03.2015 made in WP.No.5285 of 2015 filed by the appellant/petitioner. 2. The appellant/petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the impugned rejection order issued by the fourth respondent vide letter No.F.No.R.301/204/fssai/chn-import dated 09.07.2014 which is addressed to 5th respondent stating that the sample cannot be drawn for analysis as arbitrary, right guaranteed under constitution and violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Constitution of India and direct the respondent to release the consignment of the goods "Desiccated coconut fine grade" import by the petitioner company 3. The brief facts for filing the writ petition is as f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consignment does not satisfy the labelling requirement under the said Regulation. 4. The learned single judge after hearing the arguments of both sides and considering the materials on record dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner. 5. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned single judge in WP.No.5285 of 2015, the appellant/petitioner preferred the present writ appeal. 6. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the learned single judge has not properly appreciated the bill of entry. The non mentioning of name and address is without any basis since the guidelines issued by FSSAI dated 23.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that the appellant way back in July 2014 itself had provided FSSAI a latter dated 23.07.2014 confirming the manufacturers address and thereby performing not only satisfaction of the requirements as per guidelines and rules but also for further process towards analysis of sample. As pr FSSAI Rules, the supplier is also a manufacturer, therefore the assumption of the learned single judge cannot be manufacturer goes to the root of the issue and the order in its entirety is without any basis and proper recourse to the statutory rules and thus prays to set aside the order of the single judge and to allow the writ appeal. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/department would submit that the inspection of the subject consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and complete address of the manufacturer and the manufacturing unit if these are located at different places and in case the manufacturer is not the packer or bottler, the name and complete address of the packing or bottling unit as the case may be shall be declared on every package of food; (ii) Where an article of food is manufactured or packed or bottled by a person or a company under the written authority of some other manufacturer or company, under his or its brand name, the label shall carry the name and complete address of the manufacturing or packing or bottling unit as the case may be, and also the name and complete address of the manufacturer or the company, for an on whose behalf it is manufactured or packed or bottled. 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India vs., Heartland Trading Company Pvt Ltd., (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench pointed out that the purpose of labelling is not to be ascertained by any one for diluting the rigours of the regulations and importing the concept of substantial compliance therewith and strict compliance principle seems to be the requirements of the regulations dictated by public interest that must prevail over any private interest of an importer. Further, it was pointed out that the rectification of the labelling deficiencies is not permissible under any law and cannot be ordered by the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is already expired. From the available records, it is seen that the appellant in their representation dated 23.07.2014 addressed to the fourth respondent have admitted that they would require 3 to 6 months to exhaust the total quantity of goods imported. 12. Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, we find there is violation in the import process and the learned single judge has rightly taken note of the regulations and the import process while passing the order. We are therefore of the considered view that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single judge and the learned single judge has also given liberty for re-exporting the goods, if any request is made by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
