FSSAI Alone Can Certify Imported Food Safety; Customs Can Sample For Classification: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that only an authorised officer of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is competent to draw samples of imported food products to determine whether they are safe and fit for human consumption.

It clarified that Customs authorities may independently draw samples only for customs purposes such as classification, valuation, duty liability and investigation of possible misdeclaration.

Justice Smita Das De held, "In concise, the FSSAI Authorised Officer is the sole competent authority to draw samples and issue No Objection certificate for human consumption. Section 144 of the Customs Act operates independently for revenue protection and classification."

The ruling came in petitions filed by an importer of roasted areca nuts. Customs authorities had drawn samples from the consignments and relied on laboratory reports describing the goods as unsafe. The importer challenged the action, contending that only an FSSAI-authorised officer could lawfully draw samples for food safety testing.

Examining the law, the court held that the authority to determine whether imported food is safe for human consumption rests exclusively with the notified FSSAI authorised officer.

The court, therefore, observed, "For Kolkata Port FSSAI is the authorized officer which excludes the Customs Officer."

It clarified that Customs authorities continue to possess powers under the Customs Act to draw separate samples for customs purposes. Those powers extend to determining tariff classification, valuation, duty liability and possible misdeclaration. They do not extend to certifying whether imported food is safe for human consumption.

The court therefore, held, "Any proper officer under Section 144 of the Customs Act may take samples of imported goods for testing to determine their proper classification, valuation, duty liability or potential mis-declaration."

Referring to the overriding effect of the Food Safety and Standards Act in matters concerning food safety, the court held that Customs authorities may continue to exercise their powers under the Customs Act. However, food safety certification must be undertaken by the notified FSSAI authorised officer.

Justice Das De observed, "Unless there is a valid certification from FSSAI regarding the safety and the edibility of the imported goods, the Customs department are precluded from verifying the trade classification of the imported goods."

The court also found that the Customs authorities had not followed the statutory procedure for food safety sampling. It held that if samples are collected by an authority lacking statutory competence, the resulting laboratory report cannot be used to impose adverse civil consequences on the importer.

The court ruled, "The laboratory report is only as reliable as the sampling process itself. If the sampling is shown to have been undertaken by an authority lacking statutory competence or in violation of the prescribed procedure, the report based on such samples cannot legally sustain adverse civil consequences against the importer."

Holding that FSSAI is the notified authorised officer for Kolkata Port, the court declared that sampling undertaken by any other authority for food safety purposes was without jurisdiction. It quashed the test report based on those samples.

The court directed the FSSAI-authorised officer to draw fresh samples within 48 hours in the presence of the importer's representative. It also ordered that the process be videographed and the samples sealed in accordance with FSSAI norms.

The second part of the sample must be forwarded to the Central Food Laboratory, Kolkata, for referral testing. The authorities have also been restrained from taking coercive measures, including destruction or re-export of the consignment, until seven days after the referral laboratory's report is served on the importer.

If the consignment is found to conform to food safety standards, it must be released within 24 hours without levying demurrage or detention charges from April 27, 2026, until the date of its release.

For Petitioner: Advocates A.K. Jayaraj, Akash Dutta and Aditya Dutta

For Respondent No. 3 and 4: Advocates Amit Meharia, Tannistha Singha, Paromita Banerjee, Sayan Dey, Anushka Sarkher,

For Respondent/Customs Authority: Advocates Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee and Anurag Roy,

For the DRI Authority: Advocates Kaushik Dey and Tapan Bhanja,