- (1.) THE Court : The writ petitioner has imported some chewing gum and mint products from China and says that the tests conducted by the authorities upon drawing samples have resulted in divergent reports being made. The respondents are represented. It does not appear that the reports are divergent. The writ petitioner says that though the initial report found that the chewing gum did not conform to the standards as per the parameters pertaining to gum, acid insoluble ash and sucrose as provided under the Food Safety and Standard Regulation, the subsequent report reveals an opinion that the sample contained ash insoluble material in dilute hydrochloric acid which was higher than the amount as prescribed in the regulation.
(2.) IT is evident that both reports found the goods to be sub-standard though the basis for the reports may not have been identical. Two reports may be divergent or considered to be divergent if the opinion rendered in one is at variance with the opinion rendered in the other. If there are several mandatory parameters which are required to be met and if the first lot of sample does not meet with one of them and the second lot is found not to meet with another set of mandatory requirements, it cannot be said that the two reports are divergent. It is possible that a particular commodity may be mandatorily required to meet several specifications to be eligible to be allowed entry into the country. It would then imply that the commodity has to meet all the requirements under the various heads specified. The failure to adhere to one of the requirements would disqualify the product even though it passes the other requirements with flying colours. In such circumstances, it is possible that a laboratory or a test centre may take up one aspect of the several parameters for initial investigation. If the object of the exercise is to ascertain when the goods adhere to the specifications to be eligible to be allowed entry, the laboratory may not be questioned if it does not proceed to assess the other parameters upon the sample failing on the first count. It is then possible that another sample drawn may be tested before a different laboratory and the first thing checked for in the second laboratory is different from what had been investigated into in the first laboratory. Again, if the sample fails to meet the benchmark in respect of such aspect for which it is tested, the second laboratory would be justified in returning an opinion that the sample is not fit to be allowed entry without seeking to assess the other parameters. In such a case, the two reports cannot be said to be divergent though the reports may be dissimilar and may have assessed different features of the same product. It is the opinion which is the key factor in a report and one report may be said to be divergent from another if the opinions rendered in the two reports are at variance. When two or more reports render the same opinion that the product does not adhere to the specifications, regardless of the fact that the several examinations involved different features of the mandatory parameters, the test reports cannot be said to be divergent in their opinions. If a product has to comply with several mandatory fields, the failure to adhere to one would disqualify it regardless of its conformity with the specifications under the other fields.
(3.) SINCE the reports are not found to be divergent in the instant case, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and WP No. 383 of 2012 is dismissed without any order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.;