M/s ABC Chemical Supplier Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Plant Protection Qurantine Ministry of National Food and Research Pakistan; Secretariat Islamabad
Khadim Hussain Soomro, J .--- Through this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the report dated 02.10.2025, issued by the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (PCSIR), Lahore, and the confiscation order dated 13.10.2025, issued by respondent No.1.
2. The brief facts of the instant petition are that the petitioner imported a consignment of Betel Nuts from Indonesia, vide Bill of Lading No. BLHALADVSIN2507006, comprising 225 bags. Prior to shipment, the consignment was inspected, supervised, and tested by a recognized and accredited laboratory in Indonesia in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. The laboratory report confirmed that the Aflatoxin levels in the consignment were within permissible limits as prescribed for food products, and on that basis, the Ministry of Health, Republic of Indonesia, issued a Health Certificate declaring the goods fit for human consumption. In Pakistan, the regulation of Aflatoxin levels in food products, including dried fruits and nuts, falls under the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority (PSQCA), which has fixed the maximum tolerable limit (MTL) for total Aflatoxins at 20 nanograms per gram (ng/g) in food articles. Upon arrival of the consignment in Pakistan, it was subjected to testing by the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (PCSIR) Laboratories Complex, Lahore. The PCSIR test report indicated that the Aflatoxin content exceeded the prescribed limit under the relevant laws.
3. The petitioner disputed the correctness of this report, alleging that the testing process was mishandled and that the results were unreliable, particularly in view of the contradictory findings from the Indonesian laboratory. The petitioner thereafter approached Respondent No.1 seeking retesting or re-sampling of the consignment through an independent third-party laboratory, specifically the PSQCA, which is recognized for such testing. However, the request for retesting was refused by Respondent No.1 through Respondent No.2, allegedly without lawful authority.
4. The petitioner contends that the refusal to allow retesting amounts to a violation of its fundamental rights, is contrary to the principles of natural justice, and has caused serious financial loss and damage to its business. The petitioner asserts that under the applicable customs and plant protection laws, retesting or re-sampling is a recognized procedure for determining the true quality and status of imported goods. Aggrieved by the said refusal, the destruction order, and the disputed test report, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions for independent retesting of the consignment to ascertain the accurate Aflatoxin levels and to protect its lawful business interests in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that prior to shipment, the subject consignment was duly inspected, supervised, and tested by a recognized and accredited laboratory in Indonesia, strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory rules and prescribed procedures, and that the laboratory report unequivocally certified that the Aflatoxin levels were within the permissible limits prescribed for food products. It is further submitted that upon arrival of the consignment in Pakistan, the same was tested by the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Laboratories Complex, Lahore, whose report alleged that the Aflatoxin content exceeded the statutory threshold under the relevant legal regime. Learned counsel, however, seriously disputes the correctness, reliability, and legal sanctity of the said report, asserting that the testing process was mishandled and vitiated by procedural irregularities, particularly when viewed in juxtaposition with the contradictory findings of the accredited Indonesian laboratory. It is further argued that the petitioner, in order to resolve the controversy and to ensure a fair and transparent determination, approached respondent No.1 with a request for retesting or re-sampling of the consignment through an independent third-party laboratory, namely the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority, which is duly recognized for such purposes, but the said request was arbitrarily declined. Learned counsel submits that, being aggrieved by the refusal of respondent No.1 and the disputed test report, the petitioner has been constrained to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, seeking appropriate directions for independent retesting of the consignment so as to ascertain the true Aflatoxin levels and to safeguard its lawful commercial interests in accordance with law. Lastly, the counsel submits that the instant petition is hit by the doctrine of res judicata.
6. The Learned Assistant Attorney General, along with Law Officer NFS&R, submitted that the consignment in question, upon its arrival in Pakistan, was subjected to sampling and testing strictly in accordance with the governing statutory framework, prescribed protocols, and internationally accepted scientific standards by the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Laboratories and found Aflatoxcine level above the prescribed limits. Learned AAG further argues that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the pre-shipment laboratory report issued by a foreign laboratory cannot override or supersede the findings of the competent domestic authority mandated under Pakistani law to ensure public health and food safety within the territorial jurisdiction of Pakistan. It is submitted that pre-shipment inspection reports are, at best, facilitative in nature and do not curtail the statutory powers of the respondent authorities to conduct independent testing upon import. It is finally contended that no violation of any statutory provision or fundamental right has Been demonstrated, and that the petitioner, having failed to establish fide, procedural illegality, or jurisdictional defect, is not entitled to the discretionary relief sought; that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
8. It is evident from the laboratory report issued by the PCSIR, Lahore, dated 02.10.2025, that the Aflatoxin level detected in the subject consignment was recorded at 44.92 ppb, which is manifestly in excess of the prescribed statutory limits. According to a research paper titled "Aflatoxin contamination and recommendations to improve its control" published in a Netherlands-based journal, namely World Mycotoxin Journal, the permissible levels of aflatoxin for human consumption are 4 ppb. Nevertheless, some countries even allow for aflatoxin levels as high as 20 ppb to be permissible (reference made to U.S Food and Drug Administration, Compliance Policy Guide Section 638.100).
9. According to the research paper titled "Aflatoxins: A Global Concern for Food Safety, Human Health and Their Management" authored by Sang G Kan et al., aflatoxin is defined as a group of naturally occurring mycotoxins produced by certain fungal species, principally Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus , which commonly contaminate food commodities such as nuts, cereals, and dried fruits under conditions of heat and humidity. Another authoritative medical research paper titled "Research progress in toxicological effects and mechanism of aflatoxin B1 toxin" authored by Congcong Li et al., describes aflatoxin, particularly aflatoxin B1, as a highly toxic and potent hepatotoxic substance, recognized as a well-established human carcinogen, capable of causing acute hepatic failure as well as chronic liver injury, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The text further emphasizes that contamination of food with aflatoxins constitutes a serious public health hazard, thereby justifying the imposition of strict permissible limits and regulatory control under food safety laws.
10. Even as per the petitioner's own version, reliance is placed upon the report of analysis dated 11-08-2025, wherein the aflatoxin level in the betel nuts was recorded at 7.93 ppb. It is, however, an admitted position that thereafter a period of nearly four months elapsed before the subsequent testing was undertaken. In this context, it is well established that aflatoxin contamination does not remain static; once established, it tends to increase over time, particularly in agricultural commodities such as betel nuts, which are inherently susceptible to fungal growth during storage and transit. Factors such as residual moisture, ambient temperature, humidity, and prolonged storage provide a conducive environment for Aspergillus species to continue producing aflatoxins. Thus, from a scientific standpoint, it would be unrealistic to presume that a consignment that already exhibited aflatoxin at 7.93 ppb in August 2025 would retain the same level after the lapse of approximately four months. On the contrary, the increase in aflatoxin levels over time is a foreseeable and scientifically acknowledged phenomenon that adequately explains the higher aflatoxin concentration detected in the later analysis and reinforces the regulatory concern regarding the safety of the subject consignment for human consumption.
11. In view of the serious public health implications associated with aflatoxin contamination, this Court deems it appropriate to observe that the testing of betel nuts and other dry fruits must invariably be conducted through duly accredited and statutorily recognized laboratories, strictly in accordance with the prescribed sampling and testing protocols. Such commodities are highly susceptible to fungal contamination, and any lapse in scientific rigor, accreditation, or procedural compliance in laboratory analysis may lead to unreliable results, thereby either endangering consumer health or causing unwarranted prejudice to lawful commercial activity. Testing through accredited laboratories ensures technical competence, standardized methodology, traceability of samples, and integrity of results, which are essential for fair regulatory enforcement and judicial confidence. Moreover, reliance upon accredited laboratories minimizes the risk of contradictory reports, enhances transparency in administrative decision-making, and upholds the principles of due process. For these reasons, it is directed that the testing of betel nuts and other dry fruits, particularly for aflatoxin levels, shall be carried out only by accredited laboratories recognized under the relevant food safety and regulatory framework, so as to ensure accuracy, consistency, and protection of public health in accordance with the law.
12. It may further be observed that neither the parent statute nor the rules framed thereunder provides any express or implied right to an importer to seek re-sampling or retesting of the same consignment at his own discretion or through a laboratory of his choosing once the sample has been lawfully drawn and analyzed by a competent and notified laboratory. In the absence of any statutory provision conferring such a right, the demand for re-sampling or retesting cannot be claimed as a C matter of entitlement, nor can this Court, in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, read into the law a remedy which the legislature has consciously not provided. It is a settled principle of law that where a statute prescribes a particular mode of performing an act, it must be done in that manner alone or not at all, and courts are not empowered to supplement statutory silence by judicial fiat. In matters touching upon public health and food safety, the discretion vested in regulatory authorities to act on the basis of duly, conducted sampling and analysis must be accorded due deference, unless shown to be tainted by mala fide, lack of jurisdiction, or patent procedural illegality, none of which has been established in the present case.
13. The reliance placed by the petitioner upon a pre-shipment test report and health certificate issued abroad, however persuasive, cannot by itself curtail the statutory mandate of the Pakistani regulatory regime to ensure that food items entering the local market conform to domestic standards and do not pose a hazard to public health. Pre-shipment certifications are, at best, facilitative documents for trade; they do not immunize imported consignments from post-arrival inspection, sampling, and testing by competent domestic authorities. In the present case, the record reflects that upon testing by PCSIR, Lahore, the aflatoxin level in the subject consignment was found at 44.92 ppb, which is manifestly beyond the permissible threshold already noticed herein.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the material placed on record, and the settled principles governing the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional defect in the impugned actions of the respondents. The petitioner has failed to establish any violation of statutory provisions or infringement of fundamental rights warranting interference under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The issues raised pertain to factual and technical matters already examined by the competent authorities in accordance with law, and no case of mala fide, arbitrariness, or denial of due process has been made out. Consequently, the instant writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
UN/6/Isl. Petition dismissed.