Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Unsafe sample in M/S Ramesh Kumar Baid And Sons (Huf) vs Union Of India Through The Commissioner ... on 4 September, 2019Matching Fragments
10. That Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata, Extension Centre Raxaul, Bihar in vide their Certificate No. INF/CFL/KOL/RXL/19/FEB-70 provided the test report:
"The sample of Betel Nut were tested as per Standard Food Safety norms falling under regulation No. 2.12 & 2.3.47 (5) of Food Safety Standards (Food Products Standards & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 and found non-conforming to the standards due to presence of Damaged Betel Nuts and presence of Insects. Thus the sample is 'unsafe food' under Section 3(I)(ZZ)(ix) of Food Patna High Court CWJC No.6563 of 2019 dt.05-09-2019 Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards & Food Additives (FSS) Act, 2006.".
"The sample of Betel Nut were tested as per Standard Food Safety norms failing under regulation No. 2.12 &
1. substituted by Act 25 of 2014,S. 78, for "Commissioner of Customs" (w.e.f. 1-10-2014).
2. Inserted by Act 29 of 2006 (w.e.f. 13-7-2006).
3. Substituted by Act 8 of 2011, S. 47, for "adjudicating officer" and "Commissioner of Customs".
Patna High Court CWJC No.6563 of 2019 dt.05-09-2019 2.3.47 (5) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standard & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 and found non-conforming to the standards due to presence of Damaged Betel Nuts and Added Colouring matter. Thus the sample is 'unsafe food' under section 3(I)(ZZ)
26. This Court finds that in the present case the request of the petitioner to release the Betel Nuts have been rejected on a totally different ground. In paragraph 26 of the counter affidavit respondents have come out with the following statements:
Patna High Court CWJC No.6563 of 2019 dt.05-09-2019 "26. That in the view of the statements made in paragraph no. 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 of the writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that it is pertinent to mention that facts and circumstance of the instant case are not identical to the facts and circumstances for the cases referred by the petitioner in his application. In the instant case respondent has placed reliance upon the test report given by the two test labs, in which it has been reported that "the sample is 'unsafe food' for human consumption; while in any of the cases referred by the petitioner no such report was available at that point of time. In view of the same it would not be appropriate to release the seized goods for human consumption."