The Calcutta High Court has held that the FSSAI Authorised Officer is the sole competent authority for drawal of samples of imported foods under Section 47(5) of the FSS Act, 2006. It therefore declared that the sampling conducted by any other officer was illegal, without jurisdiction and void, and it quashed the test reports based on such samples.
The Court clarified that for imported food consignments at a notified port where FSSAI has been designated as the Authorised Officer under Section 25 read with Section 47(5) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulation 13(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (Import) Regulations, 2017, only the FSSAI Authorised Officer is competent to draw samples for determining whether the goods are fit for human consumption. Any sampling by any other authority for that purpose is illegal, without jurisdiction and void.
The Court further held that Section 89 of the FSS Act overrides other laws in the field of food safety, standards and edibility. Customs authorities retain power under Section 144 of the Customs Act to draw samples for their own limited statutory purposes such as classification, valuation, duty liability and misdeclaration, but they cannot displace the statutory role of FSSAI in certifying the safety and edibility of imported food articles.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Smita Das De recognised that there was a conflict between the powers exercised under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and those exercised under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court clarified that both statutes operate in different legal fields and both authorities may function within their own statutory mandates. However, for the specific purpose of food safety testing of imported food articles, Section 25 read with Section 47(5) of the FSS Act and Regulation 13(1) of the 2017 Import Regulations conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the notified Authorised Officer. For Kolkata Port and ICD Durgapur, that notified officer was FSSAI.
The Court then explained the interplay between Section 89 of the FSS Act and Section 144 of the Customs Act. It held that Section 89 gives overriding effect to the FSS Act in matters of food safety, standards and adulteration. At the same time, this overriding effect does not destroy the customs machinery for separate revenue-related functions. According to the Court, customs officers may still draw separate samples under Section 144 of the Customs Act for limited purposes such as classification, valuation, duty liability and investigation into misdeclaration, but not for deciding whether imported food is safe and fit for human consumption. That issue falls within the exclusive statutory domain of FSSAI.
The Court stressed that food safety clearance and customs classification are not the same thing. It observed that FSSAI certification is confined to determining whether a food item is safe and edible, whereas customs can independently verify classification and revenue issues. But the Court made it equally clear that customs authorities cannot use their powers to override or sideline FSSAI on food safety matters. Once the statute designates FSSAI as the authorised body for testing imported food for human consumption, any contrary sampling by another authority for that purpose is legally unsustainable.
A significant observation of the Court was that the reliability of a laboratory report depends on the legality of the sampling process itself. If the sample is drawn by an authority lacking statutory competence, or in violation of the prescribed procedure, then the test report based on that sample cannot legally sustain adverse civil consequences against the importer. The Court therefore held that the sampling done by the customs authority in this case, for the purpose of determining food safety, was fundamentally flawed.
The Court also criticised the customs department for not following the established statutory and procedural framework relating to food imports. It referred to the admitted documents and the notified port list to conclude that FSSAI was the authorised officer for Kolkata Port. On that basis, it found that the customs authorities had acted without jurisdiction in drawing food samples for food safety testing and in relying on such reports to detain the consignment.
Briefly, the case arose from two writ petitions filed by M/s Credence International concerning imported consignments of roasted areca nuts meant for human consumption, which had been detained at Kolkata Port since April 2026. The core grievance of the importer was that the samples of the imported food consignment had not been drawn by the FSSAI Authorised Officer, even though the importer argued that, under the statutory scheme governing food imports, only the FSSAI Authorised Officer was competent to do so. The petitioner sought fresh drawal of samples by the competent FSSAI officer.
The petitioners had imported roasted areca nuts from Indonesia under specified Bills of Entry in December 2025. The consignment consisted of eight containers which arrived at ICD Durgapur on 14 December 2025. Samples were drawn on 26 December 2025 and 29 December 2025 by respondent no. 2 and were sent to the National Food Laboratory, Kolkata for testing. The petitioner’s case was that this sampling itself was illegal because it was not conducted by the notified FSSAI Authorised Officer.
The petitioner argued that under Section 25 read with Section 47(5) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulation 13(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (Import) Regulations, 2017, the FSSAI Authorised Officer alone could draw samples for imported food consignments. Despite this, customs authorities drew the samples, sent them for testing, and later detained the goods under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of those reports. The importer also complained that the test reports were not initially shared and that the detention and seizure were arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
The importer thereafter sought retesting and also filed a review application before the FSSAI Review Officer under Regulation 15 of the 2017 Regulations. FSSAI, in its review order dated 27 April 2026, specifically stated that the samples in question had not been referred through the FSSAI Food Import Clearance System and that testing ought to have been done by the FSSAI Authorised Officer as mandated by Section 47(5) of the FSS Act read with Regulation 13(1). FSSAI further directed that fresh samples be drawn by the Authorised Officer and forwarded to the referral laboratory.
On the other hand, the customs authorities argued that the tested samples did not conform to food standards and were found unsafe for human consumption. They also claimed that some containers contained goods other than roasted areca nuts, thereby indicating misdeclaration and misclassification to avoid customs duty. Customs maintained that, under Section 144 of the Customs Act and the relevant notification, the Intelligence Officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence was a proper officer and could draw samples for testing.
