Tata Chemicals: Bombay high court quashes penalty order issued to Tata Chemicals and others over ‘substandard iodized salt’


The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court has quashed an order issued by the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal in Maharashtra’s Buldhana in 2016, imposing penalty on Tata Chemicals Limited and different corporations for “manufacturing and selling substandard iodized salt“.
In his order, Justice Anil L Pansare of the bench additionally directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to situation acceptable advisories or circulars to guarantee procedural compliance and transparency in future instances.
Tata Chemicals Limited and others had appealed in opposition to the order in query, dated October 13, 2016, beneath Section 71(6) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 within the case involving Tata Chemicals Limited and others versus the State of Maharashtra.
The appellants, Tata Chemicals Limited, together with others, contested the earlier resolution which had upheld penalties imposed on them for allegedly manufacturing and promoting substandard iodized salt. The adjudicating officer had imposed a penalty of Rs 2,00,000 on every appellant beneath sections 26 (2) (ii) and 27(1) of the Act of 2006.
The high court’s judgment underlined a number of essential discrepancies and procedural lapses within the case. It was noticed that the meals analyst’s report, which labelled the product as misbranded, was contested by the appellants. The matter was then referred to the Referral Food Laboratory (RFL) for additional evaluation.
However, the RFL’s report, whereas concluding that the product was substandard, didn’t present enough reasoning or justification for its deviation from the preliminary report. This lack of transparency raised questions concerning the validity of the RFL’s findings and the general integrity of the method, it stated.
It was additionally famous that the RFL had exceeded the mandated time-frame for evaluation which doubtlessly compromised the integrity of the pattern and its classification. The court harassed the significance of adhering to procedural pointers, particularly in issues of meals security, the place public well being and shopper belief are paramount.
“The RFL has apparently not followed the time limit stipulated in the Rules of 2011. The report, thus, suffers from noncompliance of mandatory provisions. The penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of such a report. The adjudicating officer as also the Tribunal have rendered unsustainable finding,” Justice Pansare acknowledged within the order.
In gentle of those essential observations, the high court quashed the earlier orders and exonerated all appellants. Additionally, it directed the FSSAI to situation acceptable advisories or circulars to guarantee procedural compliance and transparency in future instances.

Nilesh Desai
Nilesh Desaihttps://www.TheNileshDesai.com
The Hindu Patrika is founded in 2016 by Mr. Nilesh Desai. This website is providing news and information mainly related to Hinduism. We appreciate if you send News, information or suggestion.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:



More like this