IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6176 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MITHU & CO., 13/915, BIG BAZAR, CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, T.K.MOHAMMED ASHARAF. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE DIVISION, KOZHIKODE. 2. SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT, CUSTOM HOUSE, BEYPORE, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6176 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner who had imported consignment of wet dates is seeking to quash Exts. P6 and P7, by which he was informed that the sample do not conform to the standards laid down for dates under the PFA Act and Rules thereof. 2. The petitioner has a contention that the standard of wet dates is not prescribed under the PFA Act and therefore, the analysis report issued by the Central Food Laboratory is incompetent. He also impugns the method of sampling that was followed by the customs authorities. Petitioner submits that the goods are contained in more than 7000 bags, and that the samples were drawn only from one or two bags and therefore, the samples are not representative samples. 3. As far as the competence of the Central Food Laboratory to analyse the wet dates is concerned, it is provided in customs manual that if the Port Health Officers are not available, the Customs authorities are required to get them WPC6176/2008 2 tested from the Central Food Laboratory or the laboratory authorised to conduct the same by the Director General of Health Service. Although, it is true that the custom authorities does not exercise any power of Food Inspector under the PFA Act, they have to get the food item tested by the Central Food Laboratory as prescribed in the customs manual. Since that is a statutory requirement, petitioner cannot contend that the customs authority has no jurisdiction to forward the sample to the Central Food Laboratory or that the Central Food Laboratory was incompetent to issue Ext.P6. 4. Yet another complaint that is raised by the petitioner is regarding the method of sampling followed by the respondents. As already noticed, petitioner has a case that out of the 7,000 bags that was imported, the samples were drawn only one or two bags and therefore, the same are not representative samples. This grievance appears to have some substance. There is nothing in record to show that representatives samples were drawn. 5. Therefore, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the respondents shall draw a representative WPC6176/2008 3 sample of the wet dates imported by the petitioner, and the same will be got analysed by the Central Food Laboratory or any other laboratory that is notified under the customs manual and on that basis. Respondents will decide the claim of the petitioner for clearance of the cargo. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE csl