The Bombay High Court quashed a Rs 2 lakh penalty imposed on TATA Salt. The penalty was for alleged substandard iodisation in their product. This decision comes after TATA Salt challenged the penalty, citing compliance with quality standards.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court invalidated a decision made by the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, which imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakhs on TATA Chemicals Limited and other parties for producing and selling substandard “Iodised Salt.”
TATA Chemicals Limited and others had appealed against the ruling issued on October 13, 2016, by the tribunal in Buldhana. The tribunal had upheld the verdict of the Adjudicating Officer and Joint Commissioner (Food), Food and Drug Administration, Amravati, given on May 14, 2013.
An appeal submitted to have a sample of TATA Salt analysed by the Referral Food Laboratory (RFL) in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. According to the RFL’s report, the sodium chloride content in the iodised salt sample (on a dry weight basis) below the minimum required standards, rendering the sample substandard.
Read Also: Bombay HC resolves to act against illegal construction
Justice Anil Pansare‘s bench concurred with Advocate AK Somani, representing the manufacturers, that environmental elements like heat, light, and moisture could deplete the iodine in iodised sal
The court observed,
“Heat and light diminish the iodine levels in both packaged and open salt brands. Furthermore, high humidity causes a substantial reduction in iodine, with losses from salt iodized with potassium iodate ranging from 30% to 98% of the initial content.”
Somani contended insufficient evidence to demonstrate how the sample, which DHL deemed misbranded, was deemed substandard in the RFL’s analysis.
The court further observed that the RFL failed to provide any justification for its conclusion. Therefore, it deemed it necessary to instruct the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to take appropriate action, such as issuing an advisory, circular, or office order, requiring the RFL to explain why it considers DHL’s report unacceptable if their opinions differ.
Read Also: Bombay HC Drops Rape Case Against Married Man
Justice Pansare’s order noted that the Referral Food Laboratory (RFL) failed to adhere to the prescribed time limits, stating,
“The report is flawed due to the non-compliance with mandatory provisions. Consequently, imposing a penalty based on this report is unjustifiable. Both the Adjudicating Officer and the Tribunal have issued findings that are untenable.”
The court’s decision to quash the Rs 2 lakh penalty highlights the importance of strict adherence to procedural guidelines and the consideration of environmental factors in the assessment of food quality standards. This ruling not only relieves TATA Salt of the financial penalty but also sets a precedent for how similar cases might be handled in the future, emphasizing the need for accurate testing and fair adjudication processes.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
