Disposed

Firdouse International Trading Co. v. Union of India

Kerala HC24 May 2016WP(C)/5762/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the non-release of imported betel nuts due to lack of a no-objection certificate from the Food Safety Standards Authority. Following a lab report confirming the samples conformed to prescribed standards, the court directed the Customs authorities to release the consignments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 2 and 3 to release the consignments covered by Exhibits P2 and P3 bills of entries forthwith.

Firdouse International Trading Co. Vs Union of India — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2016/3RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5762 of 2016 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

FIRDOUSE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO., P.O.KUMARANELLOOR, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 590, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR MOHAMMED SHABEER.

¶8

BY SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE)

¶9

ADVS. SRI.K.M.ANEESH

¶10

SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) SRI.ADARSH KUMAR SRI.BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM SRI.DILEEP CHANDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶13

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(SIIB), SPECIAL INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION BRANCH, CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 009.

¶14

3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN-682 009.

¶15

4. AUTHORISED OFFICER, FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COCHIN SEA PORT & AIR PORT, (MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY, WELFARE), 1ST FLOOR, MARINE BUILDING, NORTH END, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 009.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, S.C R4 BY ADV. SRI.MEHMOOD PRACHA, S.C

¶17

ADV. SRI.PAUL JACOB, S.C

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 5762 of 2016 (U)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO.15407/2015 DATED 15.09.2015.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL OF ENTRY NO.2751486 DATED 29.09.2015.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL OF ENRY NO.2768803 DATED 30.09.2015.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION REPORT DATED 07.12.2015 AND THE ANALYSIS REPORT DATED 05.12.2015 RELATING TO CONSIGNMENT UNDER EXHIBIT P2.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION REPORT DATED 07.12.2015 AND THE ANALYSIS REPORT DATED 05.12.2015 RELATING TO CONSIGNMENT UNDER EXHIBIT P3.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 04.11.2015, PUBLISHED ON 12.11.2015 IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA.

¶29

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C).NO.857/2016.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT NO.KO 111343/2016 DATED 10.02.2016.

¶32

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT NO.KO111342/2016 DATED 10.02.2016.

¶33

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO RELEASE THE CONSIGNMENTS.

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶40

W.P.(C) No.5762 of 2016

¶41

Dated 24^th May, 2016.

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

The petitioner is engaged in the trade of agricultural produce. They had imported two consignments of betel nuts from Sri Lanka through Cochin Port. Exts.P2 and P3 are the bills of entries filed by the petitioner for release of the consignments. The consignments were however not released as the fourth respondent has not issued no-objection certificate as to the standard of the betel nuts imported by the petitioner. The writ petition was filed, in the circumstances, seeking among others, orders directing respondents 2 to 4 to take fresh samples from the consignments covered by Exts.P2 and P3 bills of entries and consider the bills of entries based on the test

¶44

results of the fresh samples.

¶45

On 4.3.2016, this Court passed the following

¶46

interim order:

¶47

“1. Petitioner makes a request to take fresh sample of

¶48

WPC 5762 OF 2016

¶49

¶50

Betel Nuts for sending it for lab analysis. Learned Standing Counsel objected to such request. It is submitted that fresh samples cannot be taken and in the light of Section 47 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the sample in the custody of the designated officer alone can be sent for analysis.

¶51

In the light of the above, there shall be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to send sample in the custody of the designated officer for analysis and necessary fee and expenses for the same shall be met by the petitioner. Report shall be obtained within a period of three weeks.”

¶52

Pursuant to the said interim order, a report has been obtained by the fourth respondent from the Referral Food Laboratory, CFTRI, Mysore as to the standard of the betel nuts imported by the petitioner. The said report which was placed on record in this case indicates that the samples collected pursuant to the interim order conforms to the prescribed standard.

¶53

In the light of the report of the Referral Food Laboratory, CFTRI, Mysore, the learned counsel for the

¶54

WPC 5762 OF 2016

¶55

¶56

respondents submitted that they have no objection in releasing the consignments of the petitioner.

¶57

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to release to the petitioner the consignments covered by Exts.P2 and P3 bills of entries, forthwith.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶60

tgs

¶61

(true copy)

Firdouse International Trading Co. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firdouse International Trading Co. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Major Arcbishop and 2 Others Vs P.a.Lalan Tharakan and 12 Others

T.M.Prabhakara Kaimal Vs Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority

Johnson Vs State of Kerala

Akshay C.R Vs Centralboardof Secondary Education

Raghavan Nair Vs the District Collector, Kozhikode

M/S.Sherwood Technocrats Vs State of Kerala