.png)
CITY businessman, Goolmohamad Rahaman, has mounted a legal challenge against the decision by the Director of Government Analyst Food and Drug Department (GA-FDD), Marlan Cole.
According to court papers seen by the Guyana Chronicle, Justice Brassington Reynolds, ordered on March 30, 2017 that Cole quash his decisions to refuse entry to 20,000 cartons of Buiwick tuna belonging to the applicant.
The order also stated that the Director of Government Analyst Food and Drug Department, Cole quash the decision he made on March 20, 2017 to detain the product or “show cause why the order should be made absolute.”
The court order further stated that if Cole fails to comply with the terms of the order, he will be in contempt of court and may be liable to imprisonment or have his assets confiscated. The matter would be heard on April 12, before Justice Narweshwar Harnana.
In an advisory the GA-FDD had warned consumers and the general public that the department, in collaboration with the Customs and Trade Administration, had refused entry of 2000 cartons, 48 X 170 grams of Tuna imported from China that are labelled “BUIWICK” instead of “BRUNSWICK.”
The release added that the exact address of the manufacturer in the country of origin is not stated. According to the GA-FDD the action of the department was prompted by an inspector’s report on samples taken from a container on March 9, 2017.
GA-FDD stated that label is prohibited because it is false, misleading, and deceptive. In addition, the product’s label was found to be inadequate according to the Food and Drug Regulation of 1977, Regulation 18 part (2) (a) clause (3) – Labels.’ This company, the department explained would have on many occasions exported items of food to Guyana in the absence of documentation (Free Sale Certificate) in the prescribed Form from the country of Origin and this is a breach of the Food and Drug Act chapter 34:03 Section 32 (11).
At a press conference on Friday, Goolmohamad Rahaman of G. Bacchus Enterprise said there is no reason why the GA-FDD should reject the goods he imported because his good originated from a different country from Brunswick and it has a different size.
Rahaman added that three other containers containing cheese, oil and tomato paste were also kept on the wharf. He feels that he is being victimised, since he presented the required certificate for the containers.
He stated that Cole has shown some sort of interest in the other importers, who are his competitors. Rahaman said that he feels that Cole is protecting his competitor. Rahaman said once the containers are released he wound drop the court matter against the Director of Government Analyst Food and Drug Department.
1 thought on “Court lifts ban on alleged fake tuna”
Mmmmmmm..!!!..It seem clearly accepted that the GA-FDD actions were perfectly legal under it’s stated regulations to protect the interest and health of the consumers ,which led to items being confiscated….and that the Importer and Manufacturer colluded or conspired to deceive the consumer public by false labeling to resemble an acceptable brand name..which I feel was sufficient reasons to ban..or confiscate ..but does the burden of proof of Infringement of labeling lies with the GA-FDD..or the the real..original Brunswick company..and I think the Court is knowledgeable of that fact ..but begs the Question..had these canned Tuna bearing another name..fake..or not ..not resembling another approved legal brand ..would it not be confiscated..but allowed to enter..and whether same tuna is fit for human consumption..This fact I feel rest with the indulgence and sympathy of the Court..But why are the other items in the same shipment seized…??