A Division Bench of the Madras High Court Bench here has stayed an order passed by a single judge directing the Commissioner of Customs at Tuticorin Port to release 506 tonnes of monosodium glutamate, an organic food additive used as flavouring agent, seized at the instance of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in May last year. The Bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice B. Rajendran granted the interim stay following a writ appeal filed by the Customs Commissioner challenging the single judge's order. Claiming that the food additive should not be consumed by infants below 12 months, the appellant said that any leniency shown towards its importer would amount to creating a bad precedent for others.
A Bangalore based importer of spices, condiments and other items had placed an order with a private firm in Hong Kong in March last year for supply of the food additive. It was sourced from a manufacturer in China and the supply was confirmed at the rate of $ 1,300 per tonne. The goods were shipped from the Port of Xingang in China in April last year. After the goods reached the Tuticorin Port in the third week of May last year, the Customs authorities refused to release them as the DRI had recommended seizure on the ground that the packs in which the goods were stored did not contain the names and address of manufacturer as well as importer, and hence they were prohibited for import under Section 5 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court Bench claiming that the goods were not labelled as they were in bulk packs and that the company intended to affix the labels while repacking them into small retail packs. Accepting the submission, Justice V. Dhanapalan ordered release of the goods after making sure that they were fit for human consumption. Assailing the order during the hearing of the writ appeal, Senior Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise B. Vijay Karthikeyan contended that labelling of goods imported into the country was a statutory requirement under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 and such a requirement could not be overcome by executive directions. He pointed out that the labelling requirements were very exhaustive as it was mandatory to print the name of the food, list of ingredients, nutritional information, declaration regarding vegetarian or non-vegetarian foods, declaration of food additives, name and complete address of manufacturer, packing unit and importer, net quantity, date of manufacture, date of expiry, country of origin and instructions for use.“Further under Section 5 of the 1954 Act, the import of misbranded food articles is prohibited and as per Section 2 (ix)(k) a food item is misbranded if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the Rules made there under… A huge penalty of Rs. 3 lakh had also been fixed under Section 52 of the 2006 Act for importing misbranded food articles,” the appellant said.
Source:http://www.thehindu.com
No comments:
Post a Comment