Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
M/s.International Flavours & Fragrances India Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Executive Officer Food Safety & Standards Authority Of India (FSSAI), Trade & International Co-operation Division – TICD – Respondent
W.P. NO.7485 OF 2026, W.M.P. NOS. 8069 & 8070 OF 2026
Decided On : 02-03-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan
For the Respondent: Mr. K.R.Samrat, Sr. Panel Counsel
The court upheld the FSSAI's rejection of import clearance, confirming that thermally processed products are subject to different maximum residue limits from raw agricultural goods.
Headnote:(A) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 3(1)(zz)(xii), 16 - Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011 - Import of goods found non-compliant with set maximum residue limits and deemed unsafe for consumption due to exceeding pesticide residues; Order of rejection challenged on grounds of incorrect jurisdiction and failure to apply relevant clarifications regarding thermally processed goods. (Paras 3-4, 16-33)
(B) Quasi-Judicial Process - Requirement of reasoned order - Duty of authorities to consider factual and legal submissions before passing orders; Non-compliance results in arbitrariness. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is involved in importing flavours, which were rejected by FSSAI based on test results reporting unsafe pesticide levels exceeding limits set by relevant regulations. The petitioner argued that the goods were thermally treated and should not be subject to agricultural standards.
Findings of Court:
The court held that FSSAI properly applied its regulations and previous clarifications regarding pesticide limits for thermally processed goods and found no grounds for interference with the rejection order.
Issues: Determination of applicable maximum residue limits for thermally processed vs. raw agricultural commodities; adequacy of reasoning in administrative decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the FSSAI acted within its regulatory framework in applying the limits; Proper application of mind by authority is essential in decisions impacting food safety.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the import and testing of goods. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments about jurisdictional errors and non-application of mind. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. clarifications on residue limits and their applications to processed foods. (Para 16 , 19 , 27) |
| 4. the court's reasoning about the compliance and jurisdiction of the fssai. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. conclusion of dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 34) |
ORDER :
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
Rejection of the No Objection Certificate by the 1st respondent for releasing the imported goods vide the impugned rejection order dated 5.2.2026, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of flavours and fragrances. In the course of their business, the petitioner imported the products described as ‘Air Dried Leaves 0.4 – 0.8 mm HT Q2/Petroselinum Crispum (IPC 00336585), Batch No.2244949” through Chennai Sea Port vide Bill of Entry No.5170440 dated17.10.2025, which are used for the manufacture of mixed seasoning.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that prior to clearance of the imported goods, samples were drawn and sent for testing on 27.10.2025 to the National Food Laboratory, where the said goods upon being subjected to tests, were found non-compliant in terms of Regulation 2.3.1 of the Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011 (for short ‘Regulations, 2011’) on the ground that they exceeded residues of certain chemicals over and above the prescribed standard and the said report concluded that the said imported goods were unsafe for human consumption as per Section 3 (1)(zz)(xii) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short ‘FSSAI Act’) and, thereby, the rejection order dated 1.11.2025 was passed by the authorized officer.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said goods were subsequently retested by the Regerral Laboratory and test certificate dated 17.11.2025 was issued in which the samples were again reported as non- conforming on the ground that the pesticides in the said samples were more than the specified limits and based on the said rejection report the order was passed.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that first review dated 17.11.2025 was filed in Form-6 to the Review Officer, Southern Region, wherein the petitioner relied on the FSSAI Clarification dated 11.01.2021 F. No.01-SP(PAR)-Notification-Pesticide/Std-FSSAI/2017 (Pt-I) and submitted that the subject goods had undergone thermal processing (Steam Heat Treatment) and, therefore, the Maximum Residue Limits (for short ‘MRL’) prescribed for raw agricultural commodities d not apply to thermally processed products.
6. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent rejected the first review vide order dated 27.11.2025 on the ground that FSSAI order dated 8.4.2024 relating to maximum residue limit for spices and culinary herbs specified MRL as 0.1 mg/kg for pesticides for which MRLs have not been specified. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the said order was passed on a misconception that it applied uniformly to all products by holding that it applied specifically to spices and culinary herbs irrespective of the processing method. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the said order has been issued in violation of Section 16 of the FSSAI Act and, therefore, is ultra vires.
7. It is the further averment of the petitioner that against the said order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the 1st respondent on 5.12.2025, who mechanically con order vide impugned order dated 5.2.2026 and the No Objection Certificate sought for by the petitioner was arbitrarily rejected without considering the various factual and legal submissions put forth by the authorized representative of the petitioner company during the personal hearing and the said order has been
