9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e failed to make out a case to conclude that the choice of nomenclature defies the standards mandated under the FSS Act, 2006 and the Regulations made there under - Thus, the strict labelling requirement in respect of objection 1 in the second review order, even if it is there, is curable. Interestingly, the imported chocolates has not been tested. Only visual examination was conducted. Apparently, the presence and absence of ingredients and compliance requirements were discussed by all the parties only on the basis of the declarations of the petitioner. The ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to affix suitable labels and issue necessary NOC upon affixing the labels so required by the respondents within two weeks time - petition allowed. - W.P(MD)No.20408 of 2018 And WMP(MD)No.18180 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2018 - Mrs. Justice J. Nisha Banu For the Petitioner : Mr.M.Abdul Nazeer, Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan And Senior Standing Counsel For the R2 to R4 : Mr.SU.Srinivasan ORDER The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue NOC under the FSSAI Act, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late. Pointing out the above discrepancies, the consignment was rejected in terms of Sec 25 (1) (i) and Section 25 (1) (iii) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 4. It was contended that the first review application was filed before the third respondent Director, FSSAI on 07.07.2018. The first review committee placed and examined the review application on 13.07.2018 and vide communication through mail dated 17.07.2018 rejected the cargo after confirming all four findings of the competent authority second respondent herein. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner filed the second appeal before the CEO, FSSAI on 30.07.2018. In the second review, the petitioner contended that the chocolates are perishable in nature and as such require early clearance. It was submitted that the BOE should not be read in isolation and the documents submitted with the BOE should be read with the BOE and therefore the finding that the cargo contained 25 products instead of the three mentioned in the BOE is not correct. It was explained to the authority that the chocolates covered under the BOE confirms to the definition of chocolates contained in 2.7.4.4 of the Regulation ibid contrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name of the products compound chocolates as mentioned in the carton boxes do not conform to chocolates as mentioned in Regulation 2.7.4 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Addictives) Regulations, 2011. (ii) Further as per the label description and ingredients list, the products contained hydrogenated vegetable oils which are not permitted under Regulation 2.7.4 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Addictives) Regulations, 2011. Accordingly, two out of the four contraries/objections found by the lower authorities were set aside and the rejection is based on the above two grounds of the fourth respondent second review authority. In other words, the presence of demineralised whey powder and the absence of Cocoa butter in the chocolates raised as contraries were dropped and the same found to be in order. 7. The petitioners assail that the objection (i) of the fourth respondent is on an improper understanding of the definition of chocolates under the regulation and the objection (ii) is harsh in as much as one time relaxation is not given to the petitioners as they had done in other cases. 8. The respondents on the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. The second review authority had rejected the import consignment on the basis of two objections. (i) The name of the products compound chocolates as mentioned in the carton boxes do not conform to chocolates as mentioned in Regulation 2.7.4 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Addictives) Regulations, 2011. (ii) Further as per the label description and ingredients list, the products contained hydrogenated vegetable oils which are not permitted under Regulation 2.7.4 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Addictives) Regulations, 2011. The other two objections of the respondents 2 and 3 were not sustained. 11. The first objection was that the carton boxes contained product description as Compound chocolates instead of chocolates and that compound chocolates do not find mention in the standards prescribed in Regulation 2.7.4 of Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Addictives) Regulations, 2011. Therefore, the respondents thought it failed the visual inspection contemplated under the statutes for issue of NOC for clearance. It was vaguely argued on behalf of the respondents that such a de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner contends that the vegetable fat is extracted from cocoa beans, which is also called cocoa butter or therobra oil and the same permissible under (Food Product Standards and Food Addictives) Fourth Amendment Regulations, 2017. Therefore, they are willing to affix labels mentioning the presence of vegetable fats in if required under the FSS (Packing and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. 14. Interestingly, the imported chocolates has not been tested. Only visual examination was conducted. Apparently, the presence and absence of ingredients and compliance requirements were discussed by all the parties only on the basis of the declarations of the petitioner. Therefore, in my opinion, the sum and substance of the objection is that the petitioner mentioning the product description as Chocolates and mentioning contains vegetable fat in addition to cocoa butter in the cartons would comply with the statutory requirements for clearance of the subject goods under the FSS Act, 2006 and the regulations made thereunder. 15. In view of the above, ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to affix suitable labels to cure the above men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
