Bombay High Court Directs Release of Non-Edible Arecanuts

Bombay High Court Directs Release of Non-Edible Arecanuts

The Bombay High Court has recently made a significant ruling in a case involving the seizure of non-edible arecanuts. The court’s decision highlights the importance of accurate classification of goods under the Food and Drug Safety Act (FSSAI).

• The petitioner, a trader from Karnataka, sold non-edible arecanuts to a purchaser in Delhi, which were intercepted in Maharashtra by a Food Inspector.
• The court directed the respondent authorities to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner for the release of the goods, stating that if the goods are non-edible, they must be released forthwith.
• The court also ordered the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Yavatmal to decide on the petitioner’s representation within two weeks, giving the petitioner liberty to challenge any adverse order.

Readers should care about this development as it underscores the need for accurate classification and compliance with regulations under the FSSAI. The court’s ruling may have implications for businesses involved in the trade of non-edible goods, and it highlights the importance of seeking professional advice to ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

Arecanuts Not Meant for Consumption Fall Outside FSSAI Scope: Bombay High Court Directs Release of Seized Goods

The petitioner is a trader. It is based in Karnataka. It sold arecanuts (non-edible) to purchaser based in Delhi. The goods were intercepted in Maharashtra by the Food Inspector under the Food and Drug Safety Act (FSSAI). It was alleged that the goods were of sub-standard quality. Petitioner contended that it was not fit for human consumption but meant for dyeing/printing purposes; hence; not “food”. However; the goods were seized. Hence; writ petition came to be filed.

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court at Nagpur disposed of the petition with a direction to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner for release of the goods. It directed that if the goods are non-edible; they must be released forthwith. In case of any adverse order; the same can be challenged by the petitioner.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2. In brief, it is contention of the petitioner that the respondent authorities have detained his vehicle without their being any authority. It is further contended that therefore, the petitioner has submitted detailed representation dated 18.8.2025 to respondent No.6 requesting release of his vehicle along with goods therein, which is still pending and not decided.

3. In peculiar facts of the case, we direct respondent No. 6 – Assistant Commissioner, (Food), Food and Drug Administration, Yavatmal to decide representation of the petitioner dated 18.8.2025, within two weeks from today. Needless to mention petitioner will have liberty to challenge the order, if any, passed against him.

Needless to mention further that if favourable order is passed, consignment and vehicle be released by the authority, forthwith.

Readers should treat this as a tax and compliance update, not as personal advice.

This article is for general information based on available source information. It should not be considered legal, tax, investment, or financial advice.