Bench orders release of food additive

506 tonnes of Monosodium Glutamate was seized by Customs officials at Tuticorin harbour

The Madras High Court Bench here has directed the Commissioner of Customs at Tuticorin port to release 506 tonnes of Monosodium Glutamate, an organic food additive used as flavouring agent, seized at the instance of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), on condition that the importer must repack and label the goods in the Customs-bonded area in compliance of local laws.

Disposing of a writ petition filed by the importer based in Bangalore, Justice V. Dhanapalan made it clear that sufficient safeguards must be taken to make sure that the goods in question were fit for human consumption by subjecting them to appropriate inspection by the Port health authorities before issuing necessary customs clearance.

He directed the petitioner too to provide all details necessary for repacking such as the names and address of the manufacturer as well as the importer. The petitioner was also ordered to abide by additional conditions, if any, imposed by the Customs Commissioner for release of the goods as the latter was ordered not to release the goods if they were found to be unfit for human consumption.

According to the petitioner, involved in import and local sales of spices, condiments and other food items, he had placed an order with a firm in Hong Kong in March last year for supply of Monosodium Glutamate. It was sourced from a manufacturer in China and supply was confirmed at the rate of $ 1,300 per tonne. The goods were shipped from the Port of Xingang in China in April last.

After the goods reached the Tuticorin port in the third week of May last year, the Customs authorities refused to release them as the DRI had recommended seizure on the ground that the packs in which the goods were stored did not contain the names and address of manufacturer as well as importer, and hence they were prohibited for import under Section 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Why not labelled

Filing the present case after the failure of all his attempts to get the goods released, the petitioner stated that the details of manufacturer as well as importer were not labelled as the goods were in bulk packs and that he intended to paste those details while repacking them into smaller retail packs. However, B. Vijay Karthikeyan, Senior Standing Counsel for Customs and Excise, disagreed with such contention. He said that once the goods were released, it would be impossible for the Customs authorities to make sure whether the labelling was done in accordance with law. The details of manufacturer as well as importer were essential for the purpose of fixing responsibility if the goods, being a food additive, were found to cause injury to the public in the course of consumption, he added.

The counsel pointed out that Monosodium Glutamate should not be added to any food for use by an infant below 12 months of age as per provision 64 (B) of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011. Even with respect to its usage by others, the rules prescribed that instructions for use, including reconstitution, should be included in the label to ensure correct utilisation of the additive.

In his counter affidavit, the Commissioner of Customs said that a sample of the goods was sent to the Central Food Technological Research Laboratory in Mysore after the seizure. The Director of the laboratory gave his opinion on December 13 stating that it was indeed Monosodium Glutamate, a permitted food additive under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

However, the Director's report contained the name and address of the manufacturer as well as the importer which were actually not found in the imported consignment itself. When questioned as to how those details were furnished in the test report, the laboratory said that they were provided by the importer while submitting the samples for analysis.