Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusM/S EXIM RAJATHI INDIA PVT. LTD.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1352
- Decided
- 26 November 2008
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
Methyl bromide fumigation is ineffective against the fungus, makes the garlic hazardous for consumption and agriculture, and therefore the consignment must be destroyed by fire.
Summary
The respondents imported 56 metric tons of garlic from China which was found to be infected with the fungus Embellisia and traces of Urocystis capulae. The Bombay High Court directed that the consignment be fumigated with methyl bromide, a pesticide used for insects, and thereafter cleared upon payment of duties. On review, the Supreme Court examined whether methyl bromide fumigation is an appropriate treatment for fungal infection and whether it renders the garlic unsafe for human consumption and Indian agriculture. Expert testing by IARI showed that methyl bromide is ineffective against fungi and has phytotoxic effects on perishable commodities like garlic. Consequently, the Court held that the treated garlic is dangerous and ordered its destruction by fire, directing the customs warehouse to transport the consignment to a designated site for burning. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court's order permitting clearance was set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the direction to fumigate the imported garlic with methyl bromide and permit its clearance complies with the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003.
- Whether methyl bromide treatment is effective against fungal contamination and safe for human consumption and agriculture.
- Whether the customs authorities may order the destruction of the imported consignment on the basis of health and agricultural safety concerns.
Subjects
importgarlicfungusmethyl bromidephytotoxicitycustomsdestructionplant quarantinepublic healthagricultural safety
Judgment
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 697
+ UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v.
M/S EXIM RAJATHI INDIA PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 6854 of 2008)
NOVEMBER 26, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
~
Export-Import - Permit for import of consignment -
Withholding of - Garlic imported from China found infected c
with fungus - Direction by High Court for fumigation by using
methyl .bromide on garlic lying in warehouse - Thereafter,
permitting clearance of articles on payment of duty - On
appea~ held: Methyl bromide treated garlic is dangerous for
human consumption and for Indian Agriculture -More so D
garlic was treated with methyl bromide fumigation before
,. loading in China and the same is not the treatment for killing
:,._ fungi - Hence, direction issued to destroy articles by fire.
The respondents imported 56 metric tons of garlic
from China. It was found to be infected with fungus. The E
appellants withheld the permit for import of consignment.
Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed writ petition. High Court
directed respondent no. 3 to carry out fumigation
treatment by using' methyl bromide on the articles lying
• in the warehouse. After fumigation, it permitted clearance F
-k of articles upon payment of duties. Review petition was
filed and the same was dismissed. Hence the present
appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court G
1
HELD: In the instant case, before the garlic was
loaded in China for import into India by the respondents,
it was treated with methyl bromide fumigation. But this
697 H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
A is· a treatment for killing insects and pests and not for +
killing fungi. FungLcan be killed by fungicides and if
earlier treated with fungicides it becomes harmful for
human consumption. The methyl bromide fumigation
treatment is not found to be effective against fungi as
B · found on testing by IARI, New Delhi. Methyl bromide
treatment is generally not recommended for perishable
goods/commodities like garlic as it has phyto-tOxic
effects and may deteriorate the quality by absorption of
bromide gas in the commodity. Methyl bromide
c fumigation treatment is given for propagative material and
not for consumption. Thus, such treated garlic is
dangerous for human consumption and also for Indian
Agriculture. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the
case, it is directed that the articles would be taken from
the Customs Warehouse to the decided place for
D de$truction by fire. [Paras 4 .and 7] [699-H; 700-~~E~F]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appear·No.
6854 of 2008.
·E From·thefiflal Judgment and Order dated 16.2.2006 and
12.4.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ
Petition No. 642 of 2006 and Review Petition-:No. 65 of 2006
in Writ Petition No. 642 of 2006 respectively.
Nagender Rai, Rekha Pandey, D.S. Mahra and V.K.
F Verma for.the Appellants; . .,
$enthil Jagadeesan for the Respondent. *
Th.e Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a ,.-
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.
642/2006. The respondents had imported 56 metric tons of
H garlic from China which was found to be infected with Embellisia
t
I'
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. EXIM RAJATHI INDIA PVT. 699
LTD. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
alli (fungus) and traces of Urocystis Capulae. The appellants A
withheld the permit for import of consignment until further orders.
Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed a writ petition in the Bombay High
Court which was directed as follows:
"The third respondent is directed to carry out
B
fumigation treatment by using Methyl Bromide as
preecribed in the Plant Quarantine (regulation of Import into
India) Order 2003 on the 56 metric tones of Chinese garlic
'f
imported by th~ petitioners and lying in the bonded
warehouse at the Petitioner's costs.
c
After fumigation is complete which generally takes
48 hours, the Respondent no.3 and 4 are directed to
forthwith permit the Petitioners to clear the 56 metric tones
of Chines garlic imported by the Petitioners and lying in
the bonded warehouse upon payment of necessary duties D
on the actual weight of the garlic (since the weight of the
.).
~ •
garlic has reduced since it landed on the JNPT port) and
completion of formalities, without any further orders.
The order dated 6th October, 2005 passed by the
E
Third respondent and the order dated 28th December,
2005 are hereby set aside."
3. Review petition was filed which was dismissed.
According to learned counsel for the appellants there is strong
.• risk of this fungus (at present totality absent in India) affecting F
.the future cultivation in India for the reason that the scales of
-1,
such infected garlic are ·peeled of for its use, thrown into dust
bins as garbage and used a manure. This is one ofthe ways
by wlilich some of the fungus got introduced in countries
... _.
including India and elsewhere and caused permanent damage G
to the crops which th• agrlcultural experts found difficult to solve .
4. In the instant case, before the garlic was loaded in
China for import into India by the respondents, it was treated
with methyl bromide fumigation, But this is a treatment for killing
.. H
700 ''
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 16 S.C.R.
A insects and pests a·nd not for kifling fungi. Fungi can be killed
by fungicides and if earlier freated with fungieides it becomes
harmful"for human consumption. The methyl bromide fumig·ation
treatment is not found to be eff~ctive against fungi as found on
t,esting by IARI, New Delhi. Methyl bromide treatment is
B generally not recommended for perishable goods/com_modities
like garlic as it has phyto-toxic effects and may deteriorate the
quailty py absorption of bromide gas in the commodity. Methyl
bromide fumigation treatment is given for propag~tive material '1'
and notfor consumption. Thus, such treated garlic is dangerous
c for human consumption and also for Indian Agriculture.
5. Learned qounsel for the respondent disputes the
aforesaid stand of the appellant. ·
6. With reference to the order dated 2.9:2008, learned
D counsel for the respondent stated that the garlic which is the
·subject matter of dispute may be destroyed by firing it in an
acceptable manner in an open space.
7. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case~ we +
direct that the articles shall be taken from the Customs
E
Warehouse to a place where destruction is to be made. The
date, time and place shall be indicated by the respondent nos.
1 and 2 to the appellants. The articles shall be d~stroyed by
fire in the presence of an authorized officer of appellant no.1.
The cost of the transportation from the Customs Warehouse to
F the place of destruction shall be bor~e by respondent nos. 1
.and 2.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
G N.J. Appeal disposed of.
.('
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "import"Sign in to search