Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 3606
High Court of Judicature at Madras
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
M. Mohammed
Versus
Union of India, Rep., by its Secretary & Others
W.P. No. 24999 of 2014
Decided On : 10-10-2014
For the Petitioner:J. Sivanandaraaj, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1, K.S. Sampth, R2, K. Surendra Nath, R3, S. Xavier Felix SCGSC.
The definition of 'Food' under the Food Safety and Standards Act is inclusive and covers any substance intended for human consumption, including primary food. The court emphasized the factual differences between the present case and the decision in Al Marwa Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner of Imports.
Headnote:
Food Safety and Standards Act - Areca Nuts - 2.3.47(5) of Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Additives) Regulation - The court discussed the applicability of the Food Safety and Standards Act to the import of Areca Nuts and the standards laid down under 2.3.47(5) of the Regulation. The court also examined the definition of 'Food' and 'Primary Food' under the Act and compared it with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Al Marwa Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner of Imports was considered and distinguished based on the factual differences in the cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner imported Areca Nuts and was directed by the third respondent to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the second respondent under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The petitioner contended that the imported betel nuts were in raw un-garbled form and did not require certification. The court examined the factual situation, including the testing of samples, and the petitioner's conduct in applying for inspection through the Food Inspection Clearance System.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the imported Areca Nuts did not conform to the standards laid down under the Food Safety Regulations 2001 based on the analysis of samples. The court also held that the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Al Marwa Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner of Imports was not applicable to the petitioner's case due to factual differences.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was justified in seeking relief from obtaining a No Objection Certificate under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, for the import of Areca Nuts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of 'Food' under the Food Safety and Standards Act is inclusive and covers any substance intended for human consumption, including primary food. The court also emphasized the factual differences between the present case and the decision in Al Marwa Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner of Imports.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to make a case for granting the relief sought. The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala was held to be inapplicable to the petitioner's case.
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 19.06.2014, imposing a condition on the petitioner to obtain No Objection Certificate from the second respondent and for a consequential direction to release consignment covered under bill of entry BE No. 5853707, dated 19.06.2014.
2. The petitioner filed bill of entry dated 19.06.2014 for clearance of 50.94 Metric Tones of Areca Nuts (Betel Nuts) classifying the product under (CTH)-08028010 and tariff item 50.940000. The goods were from Sri Lanka and to support the same, the petitioner relies upon the Certificate of Origin issued by the exporter dated 16.06.2014. On examination, the third respondent filed a report dated 19.06.2014, imposing the condition that the petitioner must obtain a certificate from the second respondent under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the said test certificate cannot be insisted from the petitioner and the product imported by him does not require such certification. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner would state that the betel nuts being imported by him is in its raw un-garbled form and it has to be processed further for human consumption and in case of import of betel-nuts, the standard practice followed by the Customs Authority, all over India is to put the consignment imported to Plant Quarantine test (PQ test) in accordance with the provisions of clause 3(16) of the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003, which is issued under Sub-Section (1) of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914. If the consignment passes the test, then the same is cleared by the Customs Authorities. The importer thereafter washes, cleans, dries and sorts the betel nuts, after which the same are soaked in water for ten days. Thereafter, the betel nuts are boiled, cleaned and dried again and the outer shell is removed. It is only after the said process, the betel nuts become consumable and fit for sale as a food item. In the imported form the betel nuts do not qualify as a food item as the same cannot be consumed directly. Moreover the importer does not bring the betel nuts for the purpose of direct sale to the public. The betel nuts are sold to betel nut vendors after the same are refined and processed by cleaning and drying, when the nuts are mature. It is further submitted that the test for betel nuts applied by the second respondent falls under clause 2.3.47(5) of the said Regulations and it is the same test under A28.04 of Appendix B under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It is further submitted that the test is not meant for raw betel-nuts in un-garbled form, the current form, in which it has been imported. In support of their contention, the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Kerala in Al Marwa Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner of Imports, W.A. No. 2144 of 2006, dated 04.01.2007. It is submitted that the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has held that the betel-nuts are not liable to be tested for the standards prescribed under the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and the said decision is equally applicable to the case on hand, since the same standards are mentioned in the test contemplated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Therefore, the petitioner would state that the betel-nuts imported by the petitioner is raw un-garbled form and the question of obtaining no objection certificate from the second respondent does not arise.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after elaborately referring to the factual situation invited the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala and submitted that the test contemplated under the Preve
