Sections 54 and 55 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 54 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 imposes a penalty of up to one lakh rupees on anyone who manufactures for sale, stores, sells, distributes or imports food containing extraneous matter. Section 55 imposes a penalty of up to two lakh rupees on a food business operator or importer who, without reasonable ground, fails to comply with requirements as directed by a Food Safety Officer.
Section 54: a person who, himself or through another, manufactures for sale, stores, sells, distributes or imports food for human consumption containing extraneous matter is liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 1 lakh. Section 55: a food business operator or importer who, without reasonable ground, fails to comply with the requirements of the Act, rules, regulations or orders, as directed by a Food Safety Officer, is liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 2 lakh. Both are penalties decided by the Adjudicating Officer, with s.49 factors applying.
A note on numbering: some older posts, including one on our site, cite extraneous matter under "section 56". The correct section is 54. Section 56 deals with unhygienic processing.
The two sections at a glance
| Section | Conduct | Maximum penalty |
|---|---|---|
| 54 | Manufacture for sale, storage, sale, distribution or import of food for human consumption containing extraneous matter | Rs 1 lakh |
| 55 | FBO or importer, without reasonable ground, fails to comply with requirements as directed by a Food Safety Officer | Rs 2 lakh |
Section 54: food containing extraneous matter
What is "extraneous matter"?
Section 3(1)(i) defines "extraneous matter" as "any matter contained in an article of food which may be carried from the raw materials, packaging materials or process systems used for its manufacture or which is added to it, but such matter does not render such article of food unsafe". The last words matter: by definition, extraneous matter does not make the food unsafe. In plain terms it is something that should not be in the food, such as a stone in rice or a fragment of packaging material in a snack. See also our article on section 3 definitions.
The conduct covered
The section uses the same phrase as ss.51 and 52: "whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption containing extraneous matter". So liability reaches:
- the manufacturer or packer;
- the warehouse or cold store;
- the wholesaler and retailer; and
- the importer.
"By any other person on his behalf" stops an operator from avoiding the section by using a contractor or a third-party manufacturer.
If you run a unit where foreign matter is a risk, our notice reply team can help you respond to an allegation and set up corrective checks.
The penalty
The penalty "may extend to one lakh rupees". It is a penalty, not a punishment with imprisonment. It is imposed in adjudication under s.68, and the Adjudicating Officer must consider the s.49 factors: gain, loss, repetition, knowledge and any other relevant factor. See the article on section 49 and our post on adjudication of food safety cases.
How it differs from sub-standard and unsafe food
Clause (xi) of s.3(1)(zz) lists food "misbranded or sub-standard or food containing extraneous matter" among the ways an article can be rendered injurious to health and so be unsafe. The definition of extraneous matter itself says such matter does not render the food unsafe, so the two must be read together: s.54 is the provision for extraneous matter as such, and s.59 applies only if the food is in fact unsafe. This article does not say which will apply in a given case.
Section 48(2)(b) offers limited protection for primary food where the shortfall is solely due to natural causes beyond human control; see the article on section 48.
The older site post on selling food with extraneous matter covers this subject though its slug carries the wrong number.
Section 55: failure to comply with directions of a Food Safety Officer
The text
"If a food business operator or importer without reasonable ground, fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or the rules or regulations or orders issued thereunder, as directed by the Food Safety Officer, he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to two lakh rupees."
Elements
- Who: a food business operator or an importer. Unlike s.54, the section does not speak of "any person".
- What: fails to comply with requirements of the Act, rules, regulations or orders.
- As directed by the Food Safety Officer: there must be a direction. The failure is to do what the officer has directed.
- Without reasonable ground: if there is a reasonable ground for not complying, the section is not attracted. The Act does not define the phrase, so it depends on the facts.
Section 55 covers the gap between an officer's on-the-spot instruction and the formal machinery of an improvement notice under s.32. Improvement notices are issued by the Designated Officer, not by the Food Safety Officer; see our post on how to respond to an improvement notice. Section 55 is aimed at directions given by the officer during inspection.
The difference from s.62
Obstructing or threatening a Food Safety Officer is a separate offence in s.62, which is a criminal punishment and not a penalty; see our post on obstructing a Food Safety Officer (it deals with s.62 despite its slug). Section 55 is about not doing what the officer directs, not about resisting him.
Example 1 (s.54). A biscuit manufacturer's retailer finds a metal shaving in a pack. The manufacturer is exposed under s.54 because it manufactured for sale food containing extraneous matter. The retailer who stocked and sold it is also within the words "stores or sells or distributes".
Example 2 (s.55). A Food Safety Officer, during an inspection, directs a food business operator to stop using a cracked storage vessel and to produce cleaning records within a stated time. The operator does neither and offers no reason. The omission can expose the operator to a s.55 penalty up to two lakh rupees. If the operator had a genuine, documented reason, for example that the vessel had already been replaced, that goes to "reasonable ground".
Need help responding to a notice?
If you have received an inspection report, a direction or an adjudication notice under these sections, TaxClue can help you review it and prepare the response. See our notice reply page.
Key takeaways
- Section 54 penalises food containing extraneous matter with a penalty up to Rs 1 lakh; it reaches manufacture, storage, sale, distribution and import.
- Section 55 penalises failure without reasonable ground to comply as directed by a Food Safety Officer, up to Rs 2 lakh.
- The correct section for extraneous matter is 54; section 56 is unhygienic processing.
- Penalties are decided in adjudication with s.49 factors.
- Extraneous matter, by definition, does not itself make food unsafe; s.59 applies only if the food is in fact unsafe.
Read next
- Sections 56 and 57: unhygienic processing and possessing adulterant
- Section 49: general provisions relating to penalty
- Selling food with extraneous matter
- Penalty for substandard food: section 51
Disclaimer: Based on the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 as enacted, read with the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 where it applies (ss.59, 61 and 63 only). Verify current notifications, regulations and FSSAI orders before acting.