Customs cannot override FSSAI certification or arbitrarily re-test imported food products cleared for human consumption.

The Petitioner, an importer of food commodities, imported two consignments of "Roasted Areca Nuts" in January 2026

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) tested the samples and issued No Objection Certificates (NOCs) on January 12 and 19, 2026, confirming the goods complied with safety standards and were free from extraneous matter

Despite these NOCs, the Customs Department (Respondents) put the consignments on hold and conducted fresh examinations and re-testing through the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL)

Based on CRCL reports suggesting the goods were not "roasted" and contained some damaged nuts, the Respondents issued a seizure memo on February 7, 2026

Subsequently, a provisional release order was passed on February 20, 2026, but it imposed conditions requiring a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 lakhs and an undertaking that the goods would not be used for human consumption

The Petitioner challenged these actions via a Writ Petition under Article 226

The court primarily applied the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and the Food Safety and Standards (Import) Regulations, 2017, which designate FSSAI as the statutory authority for food safety clearance

It also considered Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the provisional release of seized goods

The court relied on the precedent set in Make Index Impex v. Union of India (2023), which held that the Customs Department cannot adopt a position contrary to FSSAI regarding whether food is harmful to human health

Furthermore, the court referred to the Food Import Manual, which mandates that FSSAI-notified laboratories provide the conclusive opinion on food conformity

The court reasoned that FSSAI is the specialized statutory body empowered to certify the safety of food imports, and its reports confirmed the goods were roasted areca nuts fit for consumption

The court noted that the Respondents failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for disregarding the FSSAI NOCs or for insisting on re-testing via CRCL

Upon physical inspection of the samples, the court observed a "striking difference" between raw and roasted areca nuts, concluding that the Petitioner’s imports were indeed roasted

The court criticized the Respondents’ reliance on CRCL reports of "minimal damage" (mould or insects) to justify seizing the entire consignment, noting that such minor defects in agricultural produce do not render the whole lot unfit for consumption

The court emphasized that while food safety is a matter of public interest, the Customs Department cannot arbitrarily override the findings of the specialized "statutory authority" (FSSAI)

It directed the Respondents to release the goods within two weeks upon payment of appropriate duty

However, to balance public health concerns, the court ordered the Petitioner to clean the goods by removing damaged portions under FSSAI supervision before domestic sale

The court held that the Petitioner must obtain a further certification of edible standards from FSSAI following the cleaning process before dealing with the goods in the domestic market

The release was ordered without requiring a "no-use" undertaking for human consumption