Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M. Mohamed Hanifa, Proprietor Nisha Enterprises Versus Union of India, The Commissioner of Customs (Import) , The Commissioner of Food Safety, The Authorised Officer, The Director (Imports)

2016 (9) TMI 723 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Issuance of No Objection Certificate for the consignments for local consumption - rejection of consignments - date of manufacture/packing - absence of name and complete address of the manufacturer/packer - Held that: - an identical issue seen in the case of Kantilal N.Shah v. The Authorised Officer, FSSAI, Chennai, and others [2016 (9) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. - Petitioner to file an application before the Director of Imports, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, New Delhi, see .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

learned Assistant Solicitor General for the first respondent and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned standing counsel for the second respondent and Ms.H.Yasmeen Ali, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4, and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to send the samples of MILO products from the consignment ID No.ICA20160500021167 bearing product Cod .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

belling) Regulations, 2011. Hence, the balance shelf life of the product could not be ascertained 2) Name and complete address of the manufacturer/packer is not mentioned as required under Clause 2.2.2:6. (i) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. Hence, the product is misbranded as per Section 3(1)(zf)(C)(i) of FSS Act, 2006. As per Section 25(1)(iii) of FSS Act, 2006, No person shall import into India any article of food in contravention of the provisions .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

permitted. 6. I have considered somewhat an identical issue in the case of Kantilal N.Shah v. The Authorised Officer, FSSAI, Chennai, and others (W.P.No.40168 of 2015, dated 03.06.2016). In the said writ petition, the product which was imported was Olive Oil and similar objection was raised by the Food Safety Authority and a rejection report was submitted. This Court, after considering the materials placed before it, pointed out that the technical matters have to be considered by the competent a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

terials placed on record, though it is the endeavour of the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out that the violations pointed out are minor, there appears to be several violations which though are stated to be minor if considered cumulatively may have to be interpreted as not in conformity with the labelling requirement. However, this observation should not be mistaken to state that the product is not a quality product nor it is unfit for human consumption, in fact that is not the stan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hould be disclosed in the label as required under the Regulations. However, these issues being technical matters have to be considered by the competent authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 8. It is noteworthy to mention that in the impugned order dated 24.11.2015, the 1st respondent, after coming to the conclusion that the labelling requirements are not satisfying, has observed that one time relaxation cannot be given at their level. However, this does not mean that the petit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

axation. 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 Authority of India, FDA Bhavan, Kotle Road, New Delhi 110 002 as the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. 10. In the light of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is disposed of, by directing the petitioner to file an application before the 3rd respondent seeking one time relaxation and the application shall contai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version