As per para 32 of Madras High Court order in case of M/S.Foodlever India Pvt. Ltd vs Senior Inspecting Officer ,dated 16 March, 2012, labelling is exempted for wholesale package as per para 2.6.5 of Regulation 2011 of FSSAI. E
Futher ,even if there is label deficiency ,same can be rectified by sticking label on goods.
Relevant paras of above said order are reproduced for more clarity.
"19. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also relied on the decision of the Central Excise and Sales Tax Tribunal, made in Commissioner of Cus.(Prev.), Kolkata Vs. Dipika Enterprise [2009(246) E.L.T. 407 (Tri.-Kolkata)], wherein it had been held that certain deficiencies in the labelling requirements can be rectified by putting the necessary information on the imported goods, by way of stickers.The goods concerned can be cleared after the removal of such defects."
" 32. It is also noted that, regulation 2.6.5 of the Regulations states that, in case of whole sale packages, the particulars regarding the list of ingredients, date of manufacture/packing, best before, expiry date, labelling of irradiated food and vegetarian logo/non-vegetarian logo, may not be specified. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the dark chocolates imported from Singapore are not meant for retail sale. Therefore, it has been contended that the goods imported by the petitioner, in wholesale packages, need not declare such particulars, contrary to the claims made by the respondents.
33. Further, from the adhoc guidelines issued by the Director of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, dated 12.10.2011, it is seen that certain labelling deficiencies can be rectified, by providing the necessary information, by affixing a label containing the necessary information. Further, the communication, dated 20.5.2011, issued by the Senior Inspecting Officer, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government
of India, makes it clear that certain minor labeling defects may be rectified, in the custom s warehouse, under the supervision of the officers of the customs department, prior to the release of the consignments.
34. Further, from the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it is seen that the goods in question could be released, after proper tests are conducted to find out if they are fit for human consumption. It had also been made clear that certain deficiencies in the labelling requirements, which are rectifiable in nature, could be removed by furnishing the necessary information, by way of stickers, as held by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. While so, it would not be appropriate for the
respondents to reject the request of the petitioner to take samples of the imported goods, to be sent for testing by the laboratories concerned.
Futher ,even if there is label deficiency ,same can be rectified by sticking label on goods.
Relevant paras of above said order are reproduced for more clarity.
"19. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also relied on the decision of the Central Excise and Sales Tax Tribunal, made in Commissioner of Cus.(Prev.), Kolkata Vs. Dipika Enterprise [2009(246) E.L.T. 407 (Tri.-Kolkata)], wherein it had been held that certain deficiencies in the labelling requirements can be rectified by putting the necessary information on the imported goods, by way of stickers.The goods concerned can be cleared after the removal of such defects."
" 32. It is also noted that, regulation 2.6.5 of the Regulations states that, in case of whole sale packages, the particulars regarding the list of ingredients, date of manufacture/packing, best before, expiry date, labelling of irradiated food and vegetarian logo/non-vegetarian logo, may not be specified. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the dark chocolates imported from Singapore are not meant for retail sale. Therefore, it has been contended that the goods imported by the petitioner, in wholesale packages, need not declare such particulars, contrary to the claims made by the respondents.
33. Further, from the adhoc guidelines issued by the Director of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, dated 12.10.2011, it is seen that certain labelling deficiencies can be rectified, by providing the necessary information, by affixing a label containing the necessary information. Further, the communication, dated 20.5.2011, issued by the Senior Inspecting Officer, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government
of India, makes it clear that certain minor labeling defects may be rectified, in the custom s warehouse, under the supervision of the officers of the customs department, prior to the release of the consignments.
34. Further, from the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it is seen that the goods in question could be released, after proper tests are conducted to find out if they are fit for human consumption. It had also been made clear that certain deficiencies in the labelling requirements, which are rectifiable in nature, could be removed by furnishing the necessary information, by way of stickers, as held by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. While so, it would not be appropriate for the
respondents to reject the request of the petitioner to take samples of the imported goods, to be sent for testing by the laboratories concerned.
35. No doubt the food items imported by the petitioner should not be released if they are found to be unfit for human consumption, or in case they are found to contain other ingredients, which are not declared in the label attached to the cover, wrapper or container, containing such items. As such, this Court is of the considered view that nothing has been shown on behalf of the respondents to substantiate their claims that the necessary information should be furnished, only in a printed format, on the cover, wrapper or container and not by way of a label stuck on them.
36.Further, the respondents have not been in a position to show that they have the power or authority to refuse the request of the petitioner, for taking the samples of the imported goods for the purpose of testing. As such, the impugned letter of the first respondent, dated 12.1.2012, is set aside. The respondents are directed to make the necessary arrangements for taking the samples of the goods in question, imported by the petitioner, and to send the samples for testing, by the authorized laboratories, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the report from the laboratory concerned, the goods shall be
released only if they are fit for human consumption, on the payment of the appropriate duty, as prescribed by law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
