{"id":101804,"date":"2026-08-12T08:35:08","date_gmt":"2026-08-12T08:35:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/101804\/"},"modified":"2026-08-12T08:35:08","modified_gmt":"2026-08-12T08:35:08","slug":"diageo-challenges-fssai-rum-ban-in-court-says-action-lacked-due-process-company-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/101804\/","title":{"rendered":"Diageo challenges FSSAI rum ban in court, says action lacked ‘due process’ | Company News"},"content":{"rendered":"

\tAlcoholic beverage company Diageo has taken its dispute with Food Safety and Standards Authority of India<\/a> (FSSAI) to court, challenging a prohibition order against one of its popular rum brands. The company argued that the action was taken without following the due process laid down in the law.
\n\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tThe dispute centres on McDowell\u2019s No. 1 Celebration Matured XXX Rum, manufactured by Diageo India\u2019s unit United Spirits at its Baramati plant in Maharashtra. United Spirits told the Bombay High Court that the food safety officer who issued the prohibition order “did not have the legal authority” to do so. It has also argued that the regulator bypassed the required adjudicatory process by relying on a food analyst\u2019s report to stop sales.<\/p>\n

\u00a0
\n\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tThe prohibition came when India\u2019s food safety regulator was consulting the industry on how flavouring in alcoholic beverages should be declared and regulated.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tAccording to court filings reviewed by Reuters, United Spirits has argued that continuing the prohibition while FSSAI was still considering the regulatory issue was \u201cpremature, disproportionate and commercially prejudicial\u201d. The Bombay High Court heard the matter briefly on Monday but did not grant immediate relief. It has asked the Union government to respond by August 19.<\/p>\n


\n\tWhat triggered the Diageo rum ban<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\tOn August 2, FSSAI said it had issued notices to several manufacturing units of United Spirits and Inbrew Beverages<\/a> for allegedly adding flavours that mimic the natural profile of products such as rum and whisky. The regulator clarified that it was not prohibiting flavouring substances generally. Its objection was to manufacturers adding the flavour of the alcoholic beverage itself, such as rum flavour to rum or whisky flavour to whisky.
\n\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tFSSAI said such practices were contrary to the requirement that standardised alcoholic beverages should possess their true and natural characteristic taste and aroma. The regulator also flagged alleged violations involving age-related claims and disclosures about the age of blends.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tBut Diageo’s court challenge is focused on how the regulator reached the decision and whether the officer who issued the order had the power to do so.<\/p>\n


\n\tWhy Diageo is arguing ‘lack of due process’<\/p>\n


\n\tUnder Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, a food safety officer can take samples and seize food that appears to contravene the Act or its regulations. The sample can then be sent to a food analyst. But the Act also distinguishes these investigative powers from the power to impose prohibition.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tSection 32 deals with improvement notices. Where the designated officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a food business operator has failed to comply with regulations, an improvement notice can require corrective action within a reasonable period. The Act provides for further action, including suspension or cancellation of a licence, if the operator does not comply.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tSection 33 deals with prohibition orders and says such an order can be imposed by a court after a conviction where the court is satisfied that a health risk exists.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tSection 34 provides a separate mechanism for an emergency prohibition order. In that situation, the Designated Officer must be satisfied that a health risk condition exists and must serve an emergency prohibition notice before applying to the Commissioner of Food Safety for an order.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tThis distinction is central to Diageo’s argument. The company is questioning whether a food safety officer could directly impose the particular stop-sale prohibition using the food analyst’s report, rather than following the statutory process applicable to prohibition or enforcement action.<\/p>\n


\n\tFSSAI’s wider crackdown<\/p>\n


\n\tOver the past few weeks, FSSAI has stepped up enforcement against liquor companies over flavouring, labelling, ageing and packaging claims. In early August, FSSAI named United Spirits, Inbrew Beverages, Mohan Rocky Springwater and Associated Alcohol & Breweries among companies facing scrutiny. It also carried out inspections and sampling in Goa and said further action could follow against other manufacturers in Maharashtra.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tOn July 20, FSSAI warned Diageo over the labelling of Royal Challenge Whisky. The regulator said the product’s label claimed it was “matured in American oak casks”, while a major portion of the product consisted of non-matured grain neutral spirit. It also said that an age claim should refer to the youngest spirit used in a blend rather than the oldest.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tFSSAI also questioned the use of the term “Scotch” on the product label, saying the description did not adequately disclose what type of Scotch was used.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tRoyal Challenge and Antiquity Blue whisky made in Madhya Pradesh were among the Diageo products caught up in the wider action. Inbrew’s Bagpiper Deluxe Whisky and Old Cask Deluxe XXX Rum were also affected.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\tThe regulatory pressure widened further last week. Indian inspectors seized around 18,000 boxes of Diageo liquor bottles<\/a> at a United Spirits facility in Bengaluru over concerns that the bottles lacked mandatory markings showing that recycled plastic used in their manufacture was food-grade and safe for use.
\n\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tThe products, valued at about $1.6 million, included DSP Black Deluxe Whisky, Smirnoff Zesty Lime Triple Distilled Flavoured Vodka and VAT 69 blended Scotch whisky. The action was focused on smaller plastic bottles, generally of 180 ml capacity, rather than the glass bottles used for most larger packs.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tDiageo said the bottles had been sourced from a recycler approved by FSSAI and that mandatory tests had been conducted by suppliers. It said the products were safe for consumption and that it was engaging with FSSAI for further directions.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tThe packaging action is separate from the rum case, but it adds to the regulatory pressure on Diageo’s India operations.<\/p>\n


\n\tWhat to watch next<\/p>\n


\n\tFor now, the Bombay High Court has not stayed the prohibition order. The government has been asked to respond by August 19.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tFSSAI has made clear that its concern is not with flavouring in general. Its objection is to the use of a flavour that mimics the characteristic flavour of a standardised alcoholic beverage, as well as to labelling and ageing claims it considers misleading. Diageo, meanwhile, is challenging the manner in which one of those concerns translated into an immediate commercial prohibition.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n


\n\tIndia ranks among the top three global markets for Diageo, generating approximately \u20b926,780 crore in annual revenue.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Alcoholic beverage company Diageo has taken its dispute with Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":101805,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[21250],"tags":[42850,37812,4110,42848,25237,42852,42849,42853,42854,42639,42662,42851,22143],"class_list":["post-101804","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-diageo","tag-alcoholic-beverage-regulation","tag-bombay-high-court","tag-diageo","tag-diageo-fssai-case","tag-diageo-india","tag-food-safety-law-india","tag-fssai-alcohol-rules","tag-fssai-crackdown","tag-liquor-labelling-rules","tag-mcdowells-rum-ban","tag-royal-challenge-whisky","tag-rum-flavouring-rules","tag-united-spirits"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@UnitedKingdom\/117081625276719725","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101804","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101804"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101804\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/101805"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101804"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101804"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/britain\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101804"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}