HC quashes Rs 3L fine on salt maker over missing iodine

Bengaluru: Merely because the word ‘misbranded' comes under the liability of the seller, it is not that the manufacturer or packer is not liable for misbranded items, the high court observed in a recent judgment.
One Satyaraj M, a nominee of M/s Maharaja Industries, Davanagere, manufacturing iodised salt, approached the court, challenging the order passed by deputy commissioner of Chikkaballapura, dated Dec 30, 2016, imposing a Rs 3 lakh penalty.
The senior food safety officer of Chikkaballapura district collected 1 kg of the firm's iodised salt from a grocer in Sidlaghatta and sent the sample to a Bengaluru lab for analysis. It was found that the sample was insoluble in water to an extent of 1.5% and the iodine content was ‘nil'. The petitioner forwarded the sample to another lab, which submitted a report that the product was insoluble in water to an extent of 0.3% and the iodine content in the sample was 31.2%. Another Kolkata lab found that the sample was insoluble in water to an extent of 1.5% and its iodine content was nil. Thereafter, the authorities imposed a Rs 3 lakh penalty upon the petitioner industry.
Challenging the penalty, the petitioner argued that the benefit of doubt should be extended to it considering that one report was favourable to it. The manufacturer/packer can't be hauled up for a misbranded product.
After perusing the provisions of the law, Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that as indicated in Section 27(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, a manufacturer or packer of an article of food shall be liable for the said food article if it does not meet the requirements of the Act and the rules, which would include misbranding. "Section 27(3) of the Act only restricts the liability of the seller to misbranding and certain items ascribed thereunder, but that does not mean that a manufacturer or a packer is not liable for those items," the judge further added.
However, the judge pointed out while determining the quantum of penalty, the amount of gain or unfair advantage that accrued to the manufacturer should have been considered but no such determination was made. The judge remanded the matter back to the deputy commissioner for fresh consideration of the penalty.