9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir Custom House Agent for import of Chocolates. They hold FSSAI Registration. The Bill of Entry covered 1730 carton boxes of imported Chocolates from M/s Kamila Chocolate, Republic of Kosovo. 2. Before Customs examination, the consignment was referred to the concerned Authorized Officer, FSSAI for issuing the NOC. The Inspection officer had inspected the cargo and filed his report. On the basis of the report, some queries were raised by FSSAI and the Petitioner submits that the same were duly replied. After one month and five days, the second respondent had sent a rejection report of Food Import vide their communication dated 23.06.2018 bearing signature dated 25.06.2018 to the Customs Department. 3. The Inspection report alleges that the application was made for 3 products while the imported cargo contained 25 products with different flavours. The rejection report recorded four findings as the basis of rejection. (i)The Name mentioned in the cartons is compounded chocolates which is not a standard one as prescribed under regulation 2.7.4.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Addictives) Fourth Amendment Regulations, 2017. (ii) Contrary to Regu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product label has mentioned hydrogenized vegetable fats. Therefore the finding that the cargo did not contain the declaration of the addition of vegetable fats in the label is untenable. The petitioners had assured that they are willing to fix new labels in the event specifically required by the Authorities. It was also averred that there is discrepancies in the Regulations available in the FSSAI website and the Professional Book publishers relied by the authorities and therefore, the petitioner should be extended the benefit of doubt. It was also argued that the amendments came in 2017 and implemented only from 2018 and therefore minor discrepancies if any should be condoned. It was also pleaded that the petitioners incur huge amount in demurrages owing to the delay in clearance of the cargo. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the visual inspection that focuses on secondary packings and contended that discrepancies, if any, in secondary packings is curable. It was also averred that the chocolates are fresh and the authorities ought to have sent the samples for lab tests as the same are contemplated in the regulations to arrive at the freshness and fitness of the food for consum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... averred that allowing the petitioners to re-label the cartons as 'Chocolates' instead of the original 'Compound Chocolates' is violative of Regulation 2.2.1.3 Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Addictives) Regulations, 2011. It was also submitted that relabeling on imported goods is allowed only in rectifiable labelling deficiencies. It was specifically contended that allowing the same in the case of the petitioner will deceive/hoodwink the customer. 9. It was submitted by the respondents that sampling as sought by the petitioner can be done only upon the satisfaction of the Authorized officer regarding compliance of FSS (Packing and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 by visual inspection and attention was drawn to Regulation 6.10 of FSS (Packing and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. It was submitted that the delays mentioned in the affidavit of the petitioner is incorrect as the CHA was notified periodically online and corrective clarifications filed were taken on record then and there and as such the delay is at the hands of their agent. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of FSSAI vs Heartland Trading Co Private L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which are merely secondary packing for safe transportation of the cargo and are willing to re-label it as "Chocolates" at the CFS before clearance if insisted by the respondents. I have carefully considered the objection and the counter. In my view, the disagreement can be at best interpreted as not strictly followed. By no stretch of imagination, it can be claimed that the mentioning of the product description as "compound chocolates" is in any way aimed at deceiving/hoodwinking the consumers. In fact the consignment fall under the group "filled chocolates" and the same was not disputed. The Also the petitioner is willing to re-label the cartons as mere "chocolates". The description "chocolate" is a very generic term under the FSS Regulations. It recognizes the many sub classifications of chocolates. Therefore, I am convinced that the respondents have failed to make out a case to conclude that the choice of nomenclature defies the standards mandated under the FSS Act, 2006 and the Regulations made there under. Accordingly, I do not hesitate to hold that the strict labelling requirement in respect of objection 1 in the second review order, even if it is there, is curable. 12. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
