9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent, who is the authorised officer functioning under the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 2. The petitioner had imported Olive Oil from Turkey and filed Bill of Entry dated 20.11.2013. The consignment was examined by the authorised officer and a communication was sent to the 2nd respondent dated 09.12.2013. In the said communication, the authority pointed out as to how the consignment does not satisfy the labelling requirement as required under the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted letters to the 1st respondent on 04.08.2014, 31.10.2014 and 03.02.2015. The sum and substance of the contention raised in those letters are that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e course of arguments submitted that four issues have been pointed out by the 1st respondent in the impugned order of which the petitioner for the present is not contesting the issue pertaining to Pure Olive Oil (125 ml in Tins) and they seek to contest the matter only with regard to the other three namely, Pure Olive Oil (51.5 Kg Drums), Pure Olive Oil (250 ml, 500 ml & 1000 ml in PET Bottles) and Extra Virgin Olive Oil (500 ml & 1000 ml in PET Bottles and Pure Olive Oil (5 Liter Tins) and Extra Virgin Olive Oil (5 Liter Tins). 5.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the objection raised by the 1st respondent stating that in the 5.15 kg Drums, the labels does not contain the prefix 'producer' or 'manufacturer' is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equirement for Pre-packaged Foods as stipulated under Regulation 2.2.2 have not been fulfilled. The list of ingredients have not been mentioned and unless and until, the petitioner satisfies the requirement in full, the question of certifying the product does not arise. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner had submitted a representation on 01.10.2015 to the 1st respondent requesting for relaxation of the norms. But however, the authority who is competent to grant relaxation is only the Director (Imports), Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, FDA Bhavan, Kotle Road, New Delhi 110 002 and if at all the petitioner seeks for one time relaxation, he has to approach the said authority at New Delhi. 7. After elaborately hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n at their level. However, this does not mean that the petitioner is remedyless. Admittedly, the Director (Imports), Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, FDA Bhavan, Kotle Road, New Delhi 110 002 is the superior authority over the 1st respondent and is also a competent authority to examine as to whether the petitioner can be granted one time relaxation from the requirements of the packaging and labelling Regulations. 9.In the light of the above, this Court is inclined to give liberty to the petitioner to move the said authority for one time relaxation. Since the said authority is not been impleaded as a party respondent in this writ petition, this Court suo motu impleaded the Director (Imports), Food Safety and Standards Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
