Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1312 - HC - Indian LawsRefusal to draw samples for analysis - it was alleged that the consignment does not satisfy the labelling requirement under Regulation 2.2.2:6(i) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packing and Labelling) Regulation, 2011 - whether the consignment satisfies the requirement under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations more particularly, Section 25 of the Act read with Regulation 2.2.2:6 or (6), which deals with the labelling requirement? Held that: - Before drawing samples, the Act empowers authorised officer to satisfy himself as to whether the labelling requirements as provided under the Regulation are fulfilled. It is only after due satisfaction of the requirements under the Regulation, samples will be drawn. M/s.BMC is only a 'supplier' and he is not a 'manufacturer'. The supplier is not stationed in the country where the product is said to have been manufactured, except to state that the Port of loading is Indonesia, the name and address of the manufacturer has been withheld and not furnished. The name and complete address of the manufacturer and in case the manufacturer is not the packer, the name and complete address of the packer are to be declared on every package of food if the article of food is manufactured or packed by a person under the written authority of the some other manufacturer under its brand name, the label shall carry the name and complete address of the manufacturing or packing unit as the case may be and also the name of complete address of the manufacturer or the company for and on whose behalf it is manufactured or packed or bottled. The consignor/exporter from Malaysia, M/s.BMC is not the 'manufacturer'. Therefore, if it is the case of the supplier that they have been authorised by the manufacturer to manufacture or pack the product, then the name of the manufacturer should have been disclosed in the packing. Mere mention that it is a product of the Indonesia does not satisfy the labelling requirement. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, supplier is not the 'manufacturer', since they have admitted that M/s.BMC is only a 'supplier'. If that be the case, the name and full details of the manufacturer was bound to be disclosed. This is a very vital requirements, since the product imported is a food product having shelf life only till May 2015. In such circumstances, no error can be attributed to the impugned rejection report issued by the respondent. Reliance placed in the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India vs., Heartland Trading Company Pvt Ltd., [2014 (9) TMI 1032 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench pointed out that the purpose of labelling is not to be ascertained by any one for diluting the rigours of the regulations and importing the concept of substantial compliance therewith and 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. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|