Compliance with food safety regulations is mandatory; identical labeling of product dates misleads consumers and violates statutory requirements.

ORDER

Aggrieved by the order, dated 15.10.2014 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

2. It seems that the petitoner had imported Active Dry Yeast vide Bill of Entry No.6898217, dated 26.9.2014, which was referred to the first respondent by the Customs Department for compliance under the Act. By the impugned order, dated 15.10.2014, it was informed to the petitoner that one of the food items, viz., Active Dry Yeast, does not meet the labelling requirement under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (in short, the Act, 2006) and hence, the samples could not be drawn. The reason mentioned was that as per the guidelines issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (in short, FSSAI), dated 24.1.2013, in wholesale package if 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date'are given, then two should be different and clearly specified, however, as regards the above said food item of the petitioner, both 'Expiry Date'and 'Best Before Date' are mentioned as one and the same, i.e. 2016/04/30.

3. According to the petitioner, a representation was made on 3.11.2014 to the first respondent, stating that as per Regulation 2.2.9 of the Food Safety and Standards (Pkackaging and Labeling) Regulations, 2011 (in short, the Regulations, 2011), it is sufficient that the date of manufacture and the best before date is given and that the said regulation was complied with and hence, refusing to draw the samples is arbitrary. Since no response evoked, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, wherein, it is stated that as per the guidelines issued by the FSSAI, in case of wholesale packages if contain both 'Best Before Date' and 'Expiry Date', the two should be different and clearly specified and not one and the same. On verfication of the consignment of the petitioner, it was found that both the dates mentioned on the lables of the product, are one and the same same, i.e. 30.04.2016 and therefore, it is in violation of the above said regulation. Hence the impugned order has been passed. In fact, on earlier occasion, though the petitioner had committed similar violation, in the interest of business and facilitation of trade, the petitoner was given one time relaxation and granted NOC to import the consignment, subject to the undertaking given by the petitioner to the effect that in all future consignments, the petitioner will comply with the requirement of mentioning both the dates differently. Therefore, having obtained relaxation, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the impugned order and hece, the writ petition is not maintainable.

5. Challenging the impugned order, Mr.Hari Radha Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the requirement as per the Rulation 2.2.9 of the Regulations, 2011 is only to give date of manufacture and the best before date, which admittedly, the petitioner has complied with. He also contended that there is no requirement to declare 'use by date' or 'expiry date', mentioning the same date for 'expiry date' and 'best before' cannot be said to be objectionable one and is in violation of the regulation. He has also contended that the guidelines dated https://hcservices2.e4c.ou0rts1.g.o2v.i0n/1hc3se rviicess/sued by the FSSAI based on which, the claim of the petitner was rejected by the first respondent, have no statutory force and it goes beyond the scope of the Regulations.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that there is a distinction between 'best before date' and 'expiry date', whereas, the 'best before date' signifies the duration for which the product shall remain marketable and retain its specific qualities if stored in appropriate conditions and on the other hand, 'expiry date' is the date on which the product shall com