Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1178 - HC - CustomsImport of Active Dry Yeast - does not meet the labelling requirement under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 hence, samples could not be drawn - both 'Expiry Date' and 'Best Before Date' are mentioned as one and the same in wholesale package which should be different and clearly specified as per the guidelines issued by the FSSAI - Petitioner contended that as per Regulations, 2011 it is sufficient that the date of manufacture and the best before date is given and that the said regulation was complied with and hence, refusing to draw the samples is arbitrary. Held that:- since there is a distinction between 'best before date' and 'expiry date', the manufacturer cannot be allowed to mention with same date. As regards the contention of the petitioner there is no regulation or provision mandates that the 'best before date' and 'expiry date' should be different and hence, there shall not be any objection in declaring the expiry date same as that of 'best before date', is concerned, the said contention is misconceived and untenable since merely because there is no specific provision or regulation prescribing requirement of mentioning both dates differently, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of it for the purpose of mentioning the dates as per his whims and fancies in order to get the maximum marketable period, i.e. till the date of expiry by mentioning that the product will be best till its expiry. It is settled law that while interpreting a statute, we should not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. Any dificiency in the provision of the Act or regulations itself does not give a right to the party to invoke the same to suit his claim or his puprose which, on its result, would have a considerable negative impact on others. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Badsha versus Urmila Badshah Godse and another [2013 (10) TMI 1409 - SUPREME COURT]. Purpose of labelling is not to be ascertained by any one for diluting the rigorous of the regulations and importing the concept of substantial compliance therewith. It is not that validity of any provision is in issue. Strict compliance principle seems to be the requirements of the regulations dictated by public interest that must prevail over any private interest of an importer. So, the Authorized Officer was fully justified in not taking samples of the articles of food for the NOC purpose on the ground that the label on the product did not fulfil requirement of the Regulations, 2011. In fact, there is no impediment under the Regulations, 2011 for the petitioner either to mention best before date or expiry date, however, when he prefers to mention both, he has to fulfill the requirement that both dates should be different and mentioned specifically. - Decided against the petitioner
|