Primacy Of FSSAI Certification Overrides Contrary Customs Findings In Food Import Clearances: Bombay High Court
Court noted that once the statutory food safety authority certifies imported goods as fit for human consumption, Customs authorities cannot arbitrarily detain consignments based on conflicting secondary laboratory reports.
Justice G. S. Kulkarni, Justice Aarti Sathe, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that when FSSAI-authorised officers examine samples and issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) confirming compliance with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the Customs Department lacks the authority to disregard these findings in favor of contrary reports from the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL).
The Court clarified that once the statutory food safety authority certifies imported goods as fit for human consumption, Customs authorities cannot arbitrarily detain consignments based on conflicting secondary laboratory reports. It also observed that seeking re-testing without a plausible explanation or a demonstrated doubt regarding the credibility of the initial FSSAI report constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power. Furthermore, the Bench emphasised that minor agricultural variations, such as minimal damage in a small percentage of a consignment, cannot be used as a yardstick to disqualify an entire shipment that otherwise meets national safety parameters.
A Division Bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe while agreeing with the submissions, observed, “…once the FSSAI has cleared the imported goods as fit for human consumption, and also has specified the moisture content in the said test reports, then to question the wisdom of FSSAI, would not be an appropriate approach on the part of the Respondents, as the FSSAI itself being a statutory body is recognized under the Rules to certify the imports”.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Kulkarni noted that while food safety is an "onerous obligation" that must be dealt with "iron hands" to prevent the dumping of sub-standard products, the specialised expertise of the FSSAI must be respected by other state organs to ensure a consistent regulatory environment.
Senior Advocate Darius Shroff appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Jitendra B. Mishra appeared for the respondent.
The Petitioner, NBG International Private Limited, imported roasted areca nuts in January 3, 2026 and filed Bills of Entry classifying them under Customs Tariff Head CTH20081991. Although the FSSAI conducted examinations and issued NOCs confirming the goods complied with safety standards and had moisture content below 10%, the Customs authorities put the consignments on hold.
The Respondents insisted on re-testing the goods through the CRCL, which subsequently claimed the products were not "roasted" and contained damaged nuts, leading to a seizure memo and an onerous provisional release order requiring a ten-lac-rupee bank guarantee and a "no use" bond for human consumption.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the statutory hierarchy established under the FSSAI Act and the Food Import Manual. The Bench held that the FSSAI’s laboratory analysis is a precise, transparent, and conclusive process that cannot be superseded by the Customs Department's preference for CRCL reports.
To verify the nature of the goods, the Court physically examined samples and concluded that the difference between raw and roasted areca nuts was readily discernible even to a layperson, thus validating the Petitioner's classification.
Justice Kulkarni observed, “…to maintain the quality of imports of edible goods (raw or otherwise), is certainly an obligation of FSSAI to act with utmost care, precision and rigor, in certifying both imported and domestically manufactured food products, as the health of the nation equally lies in the hands of this ‘specialized authority’. It cannot be countenanced that the Food Safety Standards, in any manner, are compromised and ‘we the people’ are subjected to any inferior or substandard products. It is only when such highest standards are achieved, a successful march in attaining international standards on food safety and public health can be ensured”.
“It is seen from the above procedure that insofar as laboratory analysis is concerned, the analysis and test reports are made by FSSAI within five days from the date of receipt of sample with conclusive opinion about the product tested as conforming or non-conforming. This goes on to show that the tests conducted by the FSSAI are of precise nature and high standards of testing are ensured and made applicable before clearing the food suitable for human consumption. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that any window for reclassification of the categorised goods, itself is not on a sound premise, in the facts and circumstance of the case”, the Bench further noted.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the seizure memo and the requirement for a bank guarantee, directing the immediate release of the goods upon payment of appropriate duty. However, to balance public interest, the Court ordered the Petitioner to clean the goods by removing any units affected by mould or insects under FSSAI supervision before domestic sale. The Petitioner is further required to obtain a final FSSAI certification of edible standards post-cleaning before the goods enter the market for human consumption.
Cause Title: NBG International Private Limited v. The Union of India & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:14241-DB]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Darius Shroff, Jas Sanghavi (i/by PDS Legal), Advocate.
Respondents: Jitendra B. Mishra, Abhishek R. Mishra, Rupesh Dubey, and Sangeeta Yadav, Advocates.