On a reading of the above provision, it makes it clear that the name and complete address of the manufacturer and in case the manufacturer is not the packer, the name and complete address of the packer are to be declared on every package of food if the article of food is manufactured or packed by a person under the written authority of the some other manufacturer under its brand name, the label shall carry the name and complete address of the manufacturing or packing unit as the case may be and also the name of complete address of the manufacturer or the company for and on whose behalf it is manufactured or packed or bottled. The consignor/exporter from Malaysia, M/s.BMC is not the 'manufacturer'. Therefore, if it is the case of the supplier that they have been authorised by the manufacturer to manufacture or pack the product, then the name of the manufacturer should have been disclosed in the packing. Mere mention that it is a product of the Indonesia does not satisfy the labelling requirement. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, supplier is not the 'manufacturer', since they have admitted that M/s.BMC is only a 'supplier'. If that be the case, the name and full details of the manufacturer was bound to be disclosed. This is a very vital requirements, since the product imported is a food product having shelf life only till May 2015. In such circumstances, no error can be attributed to the impugned rejection report issued by the respondent. This conclusion is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India vs., Heartland Trading Company Pvt Ltd., (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench pointed out that the purpose of labelling is not to be ascertained by any one for diluting the rigours of the regulations and importing the concept of substantial compliance therewith and strict compliance principle seems to be the requirements of the regulations dictated by public interest that must prevail over any private interest of an importer. Further, it was pointed out that the rectification of the labelling deficiencies is not permissible under any law and cannot be ordered by the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 and illegal grant of NOC to any other importer for the same articles of food cannot entitle a subsequent importer to seek NOC, as an order for perpetuation of an illegality cannot be passed by the High Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India.
Print Page
Madras High Court
M/s.Gandour India Food Processing Pvt., Ltd., vs Union Of India on 25 March, 2015
Coram;The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. SIVAGNANAM
W.P. No.5285 of 2015
Citation; 2015(4) Crimes 341 Mad