Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Original Side)

Order Date: July 15, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – M/s. Credence International (regular importers of roasted areca nuts). Respondents – Union of India & others (Customs Authority, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Authority, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)).
  • Background: Credence International imported roasted areca nuts from Belawan, Indonesia under Bills of Entry Nos. 6198642 & 6198646 (dated Dec 10, 2025) and 6197042 & 6197036 (dated Dec 9, 2025). The eight‑container consignment arrived at ICD Durgapur on Dec 14, 2025. Respondent No. 2 (Customs) drew samples on Dec 26 and Dec 29, 2025 and forwarded them to the National Food Laboratory (NFL), Kolkata.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions:
  • Only the FSSAI authorized officer, as per Section 25 & 47(5) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulation 13(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (Import) Regulations, 2017, may draw samples of imported food at Kolkata Port.
  • Letter dated Apr 20, 2026 (Annexure C2) shows sampling was not done by the FSSAI officer and CRCL refused testing due to improper sealing.
  • FSSAI communication dated Apr 27, 2026 directed fresh sampling by its authorized officer.
  • Official list of notified ports (page 30) designates FSSAI as the authorized officer for ICD Durgapur (Port Code INDUR6).
  • The Customs‑drawn samples were taken without the presence of the FSSAI officer, violating Sections 25 & 47(5) of the Act and the 2017 Import Regulations.
  • The petitioner filed a Review Application with the Regional Director, FSSAI (ERO) under Regulation 15, and FSSAI’s Review Order (Apr 27, 2026) reiterated that the earlier sampling was unauthorized.
  • Respondent No. 2 (Customs) Contentions:
  • The writ petition is not maintainable because an alternative statutory remedy (review under the Import Regulations) exists.
  • Test reports from CRCL, New Delhi and NFL, Kolkata found the samples unsafe, with five containers not being roasted areca nuts and exceeding aflatoxin limits.
  • The goods were mis‑declared and mis‑classified (CTH 20081991 instead of CTH 08028010), justifying seizure under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act on Feb 3, 2026 (corrigendum Feb 6, 2026).
  • Cites Notification No. 26/2022‑Customs (N.T) (Mar 31, 2022) that the Intelligence Officer is the proper officer under Section 144 of the Customs Act for sampling.
  • Respondent No. 3 (FSSAI) Contentions:
  • For Kolkata Port, the FSSAI authorized officer is the designated authority under Section 37 of the FSS Act.
  • The April 27, 2026 FSSAI communication mandating fresh sampling is binding; customs cannot override it.
  • Legal Analysis by the Court:
  • The court rejected the preliminary objection on maintainability, citing Supreme Court precedents (Whirlpool Corp. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corp.) that an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction when fundamental rights, natural justice, or jurisdictional issues are involved.
  • The court examined the statutory hierarchy: Section 25 & 47(5) of the FSS Act together with Regulation 13(1) of the 2017 Import Regulations confer exclusive sampling authority to the FSSAI authorized officer at the port.
  • Section 89 of the FSS Act has an overriding effect for food‑safety matters, superseding the Customs Act’s provisions for sampling when the issue is safety of food.
  • Customs may draw separate samples under Section 144 for revenue‑related purposes (classification, valuation, duty evasion) but cannot rely on such samples to declare food unsafe when the FSSAI has not performed the statutory sampling.
  • The court referenced case law (Tata Chemical Ltd., Babu Verghese, M/s Unik Traders, NBG International Pvt Ltd.) supporting the primacy of FSSAI’s competence in food‑safety sampling.

Final Outcome

  • The court held that the FSSAI authorized officer is the sole competent authority for drawing samples of imported foods under Section 47(5) of the FSS Act, 2006. Any sampling by other officers is illegal, void, and the associated test report is quashed.
  • Directions:

1. (a) Declare the Customs‑drawn sampling illegal and void; quash the test report based on those samples.

2. (b) The second part of the sample shall be forwarded to the Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata within 24 hours of fresh drawal; the laboratory must submit its analytical report within 5 days of receipt.

3. (c) Respondent No. 3 (FSSAI) is directed to conduct fresh drawal of samples from the petitioner’s consignment within 48 hours of this order, in the presence of the petitioner’s representative, with video‑graphing and sealing as per FSSAI norms. The respondents are restrained from any coercive steps, including destruction or re‑export, for 7 days after the referral laboratory report is served.

  • If the referral laboratory report finds the consignment conforming to standards, the respondents must release the consignment within 24 hours, without levying demurrage or detention charges from Apr 27, 2026 till release.
  • Both writ petitions (W.P.O 262 & 263 of 2026) are disposed of with no order as to costs.
  • The affidavits were not called; the allegations in the petition are deemed denied, not admitted.
  • An urgent certified copy of the order shall be supplied to the parties upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Legal Jurisdiction, Food Safety Sampling, Customs Enforcement