Calcutta High Court
Sarad Kumar Bohra vs Union Of India on 21 August, 2014
Author: I. P. Mukerji
Bench: I. P. Mukerji
ORDER SHEET
WP NO.472 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SARAD KUMAR BOHRA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.
..................
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI Date : 21st August, 2014.
Mr. R.K. Chowdhury...for petitioner.
Mr. S. Moitra, Mr. G. Purokayastha...for respon dent no.3. Mr. P.K. Roy, Mr. K.K. Maity...for respondent nos.1 & 2. The Court : The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India has held up a sizeable quantity of sugar confectionery imported by the writ petitioner.
Their allegation is that the products and the packages containing them are violative of The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read with The Food Safety and Standards [Packaging and Labelling] Regulations, 2011.
On the court application day, I permitted filing of affidavits. An affidavit has been affirmed and filed by one Mr. Khuntia, a senior Inspecting Officer "[under designate from my Deputy Director Sri Ais Kumar]".
According to the report of food analysis appended thereto from pages 47 to 57 thereof, the samples were tested against their physical appearance and for presence of certain substances. According to the report the sample "conforms to the above parameters" as per clause 2.7.2, appendix A & 2.1 [metal contaminates] of Food Safety Standards Rules and Regulation, 2011. 2
Mr. Moitra, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent made very extensive submissions. He argued that the goods should be sent back to the country of origin. He showed me the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly those relating to misbranding, packaging, labelling, etc. provided in sections 23 to 26 thereof. He took me through the Label Regulation, being 2.2 particularly, 2.2.2[2]. He also placed Regulation 2.7 with regard to the items permitted in sweets and confectionery [2.7.1].
He argued on that basis that the label of the goods of the petitioner was defective. It mentioned that the product contained "seaweed" but failed to mention any particular type of seaweed that it product contained. Seaweed, of only particular types were safe for human consumption, others were not, it was said.
The type "Agar Agar" is permitted by the Regulations to be used as a jelly agent [see Appendix A Table 13 I[2] of the said Regulations], as shown to me by Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate for the petitioner. But the contention of Mr. Moitra was that unless this particular seaweed was declared in the label, it contravened the provisions of the said Act and Regulations.
In my opinion, on going through the annexures to the affidavit in opposition, it appears that the products sought to be imported are safe for human consumption, in all other respects. There is only an element of doubt with regard to the presence of seaweed and the absence of a declaration in the label that the permitted type of seaweed "Agar Agar" is included in the product.
Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate, throughout his argument maintained that the products were imported in packages from Taiwan and Malayasia. They were sold internationally. Only the safe type of seaweed "Agar Agar" had been used.
I also take note of his submission that earlier consignments of identical goods were released without objection.
3
In that view of the matter, one cannot stop importation of the said goods. But the imported goods can only be released in the market upon a label being permanently affixed by the importer to the effect that the product contains "Agar Agar", a permitted seaweed and no other type of seaweed. This labelling has to be done on all the imported packages to the satisfaction of the Food Safety Department. The Food Safety Department will issue a 'No Objection Certificate' within 48 hours thereafter. The Customs Authorities will thereupon take steps for expeditious release of the goods.
The writ application is allowed to the above extent. Mr. Moitra prays for stay of operation of this order. Since the question of food safety is involved, the prayer for stay is considered. The respondents, at their option, may not comply with this order for a period of ten days from date.
Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(I. P. MUKERJI, J.) Pkd.
A.R.[C.R.]