The petitioner is concerned with the import clearance of 'Annatto Seeds', which has been refused, due to non-issuance of a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) by the 2nd respondent, an authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2011 (for brevity the 'Act').

2. The petitioner imported, from Cote De Ivoire, 32000 kilo grams of Annatto Seeds, which is a food additive used as a colouring agent, in processed food products. M/s. SiiRA of Abidjan is said to have collected the Annatto Seeds and packed it for export to India, making them the exporter. On arrival at Cochin Port on 4.2.2015, the customs insisted for PQ and FSSAI clearance. When a request was made for taking samples for the purpose of the aforesaid clearance, the 2nd respondent refused the same by Ext.P4. Ext.P4 remarks that, on physical verification, the name and complete address of the packer as required under 2.2.2:6 of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 (for brevity 'Regulations') was not available in the consignment. The request to draw sample was hence rejected. In fact, Ext.P5 issued by the importer would indicate that the packing was not done as per the instructions of the importer.

3. The petitioner was before this Court with W.P.(C) No.10853/2015, which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment dated 12.05.2015. The official respondents before this Court contended that in terms of Section 23 of the Act, the petitioner's goods cannot be released. This Court, as an interim measure, directed the samples to be taken for analysis, which report of analysis was placed before Court in a sealed cover. By Ext.P6 judgment, this Court recorded the fact that the report reveals the goods to be in conformity with the standards and that there is no impurity or contamination. Accepting the petitioner's contention that the defects are curable by the importer itself, subject to such curing being effected, the goods were directed to be released.

4. The 2nd respondent, however, issued Ext.P7, again relying on Section 23 of the Act and Regulation 2.2.2:6 of the Regulations. It was specifically noticed that the name and complete address of the Manufacturer/Packer, to be declared on every package of food in a non detachable manner, as per Regulation 2.2.1:4 of the Regulations and Section 23 of the Act, has not been complied with on the packages. The label attached was found to be on the jute bags and did not have the name and complete address of the packer.

5. The petitioner contends that a 'food additive' is not a 'food' as defined under the Act and that Section 23 of the Act would not be applicable to imports, and in any event the labels could be affixed by the importer before clearance and hence the defect is a curable one. The petitioner also relies on the Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in FSSAI v. Danisco (India) Pvt. Ltd - LPA No.659/2014. The Department, however, asserts on its operational experience that there is downloading of inferior goods into developing countries which has to be checked scrupulously and the provisions of the Act be diligently enforced. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would rely on a Single Bench decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in M/s. Amrut Distilleries Limited v. The Authorised Officer, Chennai Seaport & Airport and another - W.P.No.33478 of 2014 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014 and a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in Food Safety and Standards Authority of India v. Heartland Trading Company Pvt. Ltd & others - MAT No.1252 of 2014.

6. The Delhi High Court in the aforesaid decision was concerned with two writ petitions where two different products, being 'Lactic Culture' and 'Chocolate', were refused to be issued with NOC under the Regulations. We are not concerned with the pronouncement with respect to chocolates since that was on a controversy as to the 'expiry date' and 'best before date'. The consignment of 'Lactic Culture' was found to be not complyi