Court agrees with refusal of falsely labelled tuna

May 18, 2017 News

The High Court has ruled that Director of the Government Analyst Food and Drug Department, (GA-FDD) Marlan Cole has shown sufficient reasons for the refusal of entry of some 2,000 cartons of falsely labelled Tuna.

The Food and Drug Department had flagged the falsely labelled tuna (at left), barring it from entering the local market.

The tuna, an imitation of the brand “Brunswick,” had been barred from entering the local market by the GA-FDD in March. The merchandise belonged to businessman, Goomohamed Rahaman of G. Bacchus Enterprise.
The businessman had challenged the GA-FDD’s refusal of the goods in the High Court. Last week, Justice Nareshwar Harnanan discharged the order sought by Rahaman.
He ruled that the GAFDD Director had shown sufficient cause for his decision on March 20 last, to refuse the entry of 2,000 cartons of Buiwick Tuna on the ground that the label is false, misleading and deceptive, according to the Food and Drugs Act Chapter 34:04 and Food and Drugs Regulations.
Attorney Stephan Knights had appeared on behalf of Rahaman while Attorney Judy Stuart-Adonis from the Chambers of the Attorney General, had appeared on behalf of the GA-FDD.
The GA-FDD Director had warned consumers that the product should be avoided for a number of reasons. He had explained that the label of the merchandise was deemed false, misleading and deceptive based on the Food and Drug Act Chapter 34:04. The department said that the label was found to be inadequate based on the Food and Drug Regulation of 1977, Regulation 18 Part (2) (a) clause (iii) – Labels.
Additionally, it was pointed out while most goods are usually labelled “Made in China,” The Buiwick Tuna states that the manufactured product is a “Product of P.R.C” abbreviation for “People’s Republic of China.” It was noted too that the original tuna brand Brunswick is a product Thailand.
As such, Cole said that his agency will be notifying the regulatory agency of the People’s Republic of China on the findings and action, because official documentation with attestation was used to facilitate the shipment of falsely labelled tuna into Guyana.
However the importer, (Rahaman) had said that there is no reason why the GA-FDD should reject the goods he imported simply because the country of origin is printed on the labels of his tuna cans.
Additionally, the importer said a certificate of origin dated January 11, 2017, showed that the product has been certified by the People’s Republic of China. The certificate also stated that the exporter of the product is ‘Tropical Food Manufacturing (Ningbo) Co. Ltd., 78 Binjiang Zhilu, Xiaogang, Ningbo, China.’
It was also declared by the exporter that all the goods were produced in China, and that they comply with the Rules of Origin of the People’s Republic of China. Tropical Food Manufacturing is also named as the manufacturer of the product based on the information given on the label of the can.
According to Rahaman, although the Chinese company would have produced the product, he bought the goods from Central International Co. LLC located in the United States of America. The man held that his shipment was refused because another local business sells the “Brunswick” brand of Tuna and is influencing the process in its favour, out of fear of competition from a cheaper product.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News