Bombay HC Sets Aside Penalty On Tata Chemicals For Substandard Iodized Salt, Directs FSSAI To Ensure Procedural Compliance Of Sample Analysis
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High recently set aside a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs imposed on Tata Chemicals and other companies for manufacturing and selling substandard iodized salt.Justice Anil L Pansare observed that the authorities did not follow the mandatory time limit for lab analysis of samples.“In the present case, the RFL has apparently not followed the time limit stipulated in the Rules...
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High recently set aside a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs imposed on Tata Chemicals and other companies for manufacturing and selling substandard iodized salt.
Justice Anil L Pansare observed that the authorities did not follow the mandatory time limit for lab analysis of samples.
“In the present case, the RFL has apparently not followed the time limit stipulated in the Rules of 2011. The Report, thus, suffers from non-compliance of mandatory provisions. The penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of such report. The Adjudicating Officer as also the Tribunal have rendered unsustainable finding”, the court said.
The court directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India to issue advisories or circulars ensuring adherence to procedural standards in laboratory analyses.
“The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India shall issue advisory or office order or circular in terms of what has been noted in the body of the order.”
The court allowed an appeal filed by TATA Chemicals Limited and others, challenging the order dated October 13, 2016 passed by the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, Buldhana. The Tribunal had upheld the order dated May 14, 2013 passed by the Adjudicating Officer and Joint Commissioner, (Food), Food and Drug Administration, Amravati, imposing the penalty.
The Adjudicating Officer found the appellants guilty of contravening Section 26(2)(ii) and 27(1) of the Act of 2006 by manufacturing and selling substandard Iodized Salt TATA to the respondent. Consequently, a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- was imposed on each appellant under Section 51 of the Act of 2006.
The dispute arose from the analysis of samples of Iodized Salt (TATA Salt) taken from the premises of Pushpak Traders, Akola Bazar, Khamgaon, District Buldhana. The Food Safety Officer drew the samples and sent one part for testing to the Food Analyst, District Health Laboratory, Amravati (DHL), while the remaining three parts were sent to the Designated Officer, Buldhana. The DHL's report described the sample as misbranded, contravening the Packaging & Labeling Regulations of Chapter – 2 of Food Safety & Standards Regulations, 2011.
Challenging this report, the appellants appealed to the Designated Officer, who referred the matter to the Referral Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, New Delhi (RFL). The RFL's analysis found the sample substandard, citing lower sodium chloride content than the minimum prescribed limits under Section 3(1)(zx) of the Act of 2006.
The appellant contended that the RFL's analysis contradicted the DHL's report as DHL termed the salt misbranded while RFL termed it substandard. It argued that the RFL's report, without addressing the discrepancies with the DHL's findings, lacked justification and opportunity for appeal, thus rendering it unacceptable.
The appellants had appealed against the DHL report, claiming misbranding. The RFL found the sample substandard, a more severe finding that led to greater consequences for the appellants, despite the initial appeal. The court noted that in an appeal, the appellate authority should either uphold or set aside the lower authority's findings but not impose a more severe finding without justification. The RFL should have provided reasons for disagreeing with the DHL's findings. The absence of such reasons undermined the validity of the RFL's report and the appeal's purpose, the court said.
Rule 2.4.6 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 mandates the RFL to issue a certificate of analysis within fourteen days of receiving the sample. The court noted that the RFL took over thirty days to complete the analysis, breaching the prescribed time limit and potentially compromising the sample's integrity due to environmental factors.
The court highlighted the significance of timely analysis, especially concerning perishable products like iodized salt, prone to quality degradation if not analysed promptly.
Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, quashing the orders of the Adjudicating Officer and the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal.
Case no. – Appeal Against Order No. 19 of 2019
Case Title – TATA Chemicals Limited v. State of Maharashtra