Back
Questions Whether FSSAI or Customs Should Sample Imported Food Items
The has flagged as "recurring" the question of who is legally authorised to draw samples from imported food consignments for testing — officers of the or Customs officers. A Division Bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla issued in a filed by importer Indu Shekhar, seeking an authoritative clarification on the issue.
A Dispute Over Roasted Areca Nuts
The petitioner imported roasted areca nuts covered by multiple bills of entry filed between April and May 2026. The consignments were detained by Customs, and test reports from the were disputed. The originally sought several reliefs: a declaration that CRCL/DYCC test reports were unlawful, a direction to release the detained goods, a mandate compelling Customs field formations to follow FSSAI Import Regulations and instructions, and a certificate for waiver of .
By the time the matter was heard on , the court noted that reliefs concerning the test reports, release of goods, and "have ." What remained was — a broader, systemic direction that Customs officers must comply with the and related notifications while handling imported food articles.
The Core Legal Question
The key issue, as framed by the court, is this:
"Basically, the issue is whether, when food items are imported into the country, the sample that is drawn should be drawn by authorised officers appointed by FSSAI and thereafter sent to the laboratories which are approved by the FSSAI, or whether the Customs Officers, even prior to the samples having been drawn by the FSSAI, draw a sample and send it to their own laboratory, namely, the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (for short 'CRCL')."
Petitioner's Stand: Let FSSAI Handle Sampling
Senior counsel , appearing for the petitioner, argued that Customs officers frequently draw samples and send them to CRCL without involving FSSAI. In many cases, he submitted, importers are forced to approach the court because CRCL reports are later found to be incorrect, and goods are cleared only after representations are made. To stop this cycle, Shroff contended that whenever any food item is imported, the authorised officer of FSSAI should draw the sample and send it for testing to an FSSAI-approved laboratory.
The petition relied on a series of : the FSSAI (Import) Regulations 2017, , Notification No. 57/2015-2020 dated , and Instruction No. 1/2020-Customs dated .
Court's Observation: A
The Bench found merit in the petitioner's concern and observed that the issue keeps arising despite the existing framework. The court recorded:
"After hearing the parties, we find that this issue is a recurring one. Though in the facts of the present case prayer clauses (a), (b) and (d) have , we issue in the above only in relation to ."
Consequently, the court directed the Revenue to file an articulating its stand on the arguments canvassed by the petitioner. The affidavit is due by , with a , if any, by . The petition has been posted for hearing and on .
What Happens Next
The outcome of this could have significant implications for the import of food articles. If the court accepts the petitioner's interpretation, Customs officers may no longer be able to unilaterally draw samples and test imported food at CRCL before FSSAI's authorised officers undertake the statutory sampling process. This could streamline clearance procedures and reduce disputes over the credibility of laboratory reports.
For now, the court has made it clear that the issue is not merely academic — it is a live, recurring problem affecting importers, and an is necessary.
