CHROMACHEMIE LABORATORY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CHENNAI SEAPORT & AIRPORT, FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the impugned order dated 06.01.2015 passed by the first respondent/the Authorized Officer, Chennai Seaport & Airport, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), Chennai, in rejecting the request of the petitioner for drawing the samples from the consignment for analysis, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground that the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011, will not apply to the subject goods viz. ERYTHRITROL, as it is admittedly a raw materials used in the manufacture of artificial sweetener. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the first respondent to send appropriate report under the Foods Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder to the second respondent/the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group 2A), Chennai, to enable the petitioner to clear the goods covered by Bill of Entry No. 7053313, dated 13.10.2014.

(2.) THE petitioner Company had imported 80 packages of 'Erythritol' from China, vide Bill of Entry No. 7053313, dated 13.10.2014. Thereafter, the second respondent referred the goods to the first respondent for ensuring compliance of the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. However, the first respondent refused to draw the samples for testing on the ground that the product in question did not contain the label with the required declaration as per the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 (in short "Labelling Regulation"). According to the first respondent, these defects were non -rectifiable. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Deputy Director, FSSAI, stating that the imported goods contain a label and it specifies the lot number, net weight and the name of the manufacturer and it further stated that the import 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. 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.) BY referring to Section 3(1)(f) of the Act, learned counsel submitted that an industrial user or an entity, which purchases food items for utilizing the same in their production process, would be excluded from the definition of the expression 'consumer', therefore, it goes without saying that the product, which fall under the definition of food, meant not for direct human consumption but for sale to industrial consumers for use in manufacture of articles of food, would be excluded from the definition of 'pre -packaged' or 'pre -packed' food. As long as packaged food contains food items, which are ready for personal consumption, the same would fall within the definition of 'prepackaged' or 'pre -packed' food and that the items, that are meant for direct consumption by individual would fall completely outside the definition of 'pre -packaged' or 'pre -packed' food. Therefore, by applying the provision, he pleaded that since the goods in question are not 'pre -packaged' or 'pre -packed' food, the provisions of the Labelling Regulations are inapplicable to the case on hand.