A company has been given the green light to pursue a lawsuit over being blocked from selling a shipment of energy drinks imported from Vietnam.
On Wednesday, High Court Judge Frank Seepersad granted Rollin Marketing Company leave to pursue its judicial review case against the Chief Chemist/Director of Food and Drugs, of the Ministry of Health’s Chemistry, Food and Drugs Division.
In the company’s court filings, its managing director Naren Mahadeosingh said on January 20, the company received a consignment of 1,900 cases of Sting Energy Drink after it paid $44,686.23 in duties.
Five days later, it received correspondence from the Chief Chemist/Director of Food and Drugs indicating that it could not distribute and sell the drink until testing was done to determine whether the levels of bacteria and impurities in the drinks were within acceptable standards.
“I duly complied with this directive notwithstanding that I found it rather curious as at no time before in any prior shipment of food items was this requirement imposed,” he said.
The company retained the Caribbean Industrial Research Institute (Cariri) to perform the testing.
Although Cariri provided a report in March indicating that the drinks had acceptable standards, the prohibition against sale was not lifted.
“Despite numerous calls and attempts to get the Intended Defendant to secure permission to permit distribution, I have received no positive word,” Mahadeosingh said.
Stating that it would take two to three months to distribute the drinks to retailers and a further three months for the retailers to sell the drinks to consumers, Mahadeosingh noted that the drinks are set to expire at the end of August.
“As such the intended claimant is required to distribute the said goods to its retail clients a few months before the aforementioned expiry dates. This provides the retailers enough time to sell these products before they become unsaleable,” Mahadeosingh said.
He said if the prohibition is not lifted in time and the drinks expire without being sold, his company would suffer significant losses including the US$18,601 it paid to purchase the shipment and import it, the associated import taxes and more than $50,000 in potential profits.
“Above all, the company has had committed sales orders from its regular and long-standing customers and is unable to fulfil these,” he said.
“Additionally, the company stands the risk of reputational damage as there has been no prior existing problem concerning the safety, quality and integrity of the beverages,” he added.
The company is seeking a declaration that the prohibition is illegal, irrational, and procedurally improper as it has met all the health and regulatory requirements for distribution and sale. It is also seeking an order quashing the decision.
A case management conference of the lawsuit is scheduled for June 11.
The company was represented by Kelvin Ramkissoon and Nizam Saladeen.