The Legal Regime of Non-Compliant Products
Legal liability built on the unsuitability or counterfeiting of food and animal feed is gathered in Georgia in the liability chapter of the Food and Feed Safety Code, and it rests on the business operator: the existence or discovery of non-compliance, the placing of expired products on the market and the breach of labelling rules are each punished with a separate fine. The actual subject is the administrative liability for placing non-compliant and expired products on the market. A boundary is noted as well: a consumer's civil claim over quality belongs to the regime of the Civil Code and lies outside this page; what is explained here is regulatory liability.
Non-Compliance and Failure to Follow Instructions — Article 68
The first fine block is built as follows: where a non-compliance is discovered that does not directly threaten human or animal life and health and whose reduction or elimination is possible without suspending the production process, failure to comply with the instruction of the authorised person leads to a fine of four hundred lari; failure after the expiry of a new reasonable period — one thousand two hundred lari. Where the non-compliance is such that food harmful to life and health has been discovered and its elimination without suspending the process is impossible — one thousand lari and the suspension of the production process. These three steps determine how quickly the operator must act upon receiving an instruction: missing the very first deadline triples the fine, and a health risk goes as far as stopping the process.
The logic of the fine ladder reads as follows: the sanction here is a function of conduct, not merely of result. 400 lari is fixed for non-compliance with the instruction; 1 200 — for inaction even after the expiry of a new reasonable period; and 1 000 lari with the suspension of the process — where the product itself is harmful and its elimination is impossible without suspension. For the operator this means that a documented reaction to the very first instruction avoids all three steps at once.
Expired Product and Labelling — Articles 67 and 74-1
The placing on the market of expired food or animal feed leads to a fine of two hundred lari for an operator holding small-business status, five hundred lari for any other operator, together with the prevention of the placing and the removal of such products from the market; the repeated commission of the same act — a fine of three thousand lari and again the removal. A breach of the labelling rules is punished by four hundred lari; repeated within one year — one thousand two hundred lari; a breach of the labelling of a veterinary preparation — two hundred lari, on repetition — six hundred. In practical terms these figures function as a calendar: a shelf-life control system and a labelling verification procedure cost far less than the ladder of fines — and that systemic discipline is also what preserves consumer trust.
Note also the difference in the boundaries of repetition: for a labelling breach the law fixes repetition within one year, while for the repeated placing of expired food on the market the law states no such window — calendar control must therefore be built separately for each of the two norms.
The Operator's Algorithm of Action
Knowing the fine steps is only half; the other half is the algorithm of action. Upon receiving an instruction, the first step is the precise fixation of its content — what non-compliance, which batch and what deadline; the second, the immediate documentation of a correction plan; the third, monitoring of the deadline, since a second deadline triples the fine. In the expired-product case, the trace of the removal report is decisive — it protects the operator from the repeated fine. And finally, the preventive contour: an inventory management system that records shelf lives in advance, and double verification of labelling — these two procedures avoid most fines altogether.
A documentary trail unites all of this: registration of the instruction, the correction plan, confirmation of performance and the act of removal — four documents that record the facts in a legible form when the fine ladder reaches a dispute. In relations with the regulator it is precisely this fixation that protects the operator from the double cost of both the fine and the repetition qualification.
Frequently Asked Questions
Below we answer the most common questions about non-compliant products.
What fine attaches to ignoring an instruction?
Four hundred lari; after the expiry of a new period — one thousand two hundred; where the product is harmful to health — one thousand lari and suspension of the process.
What are the fines for expired product?
For small business — two hundred lari, for others — five hundred; on repetition — three thousand lari and removal.
How is a labelling breach punished?
Four hundred lari; repeated within a year — one thousand two hundred; for a veterinary preparation — two hundred, on repetition — six hundred.
Can a civil claim also be brought?
Yes, the consumer's civil route is a separate regime and remains outside the subject of this page.
Does a repetition always triple the amounts?
The law fixes repetition within one year for labelling breaches; for expired products the repeated act raises the fine to 3 000 lari regardless of a stated window. Each norm's repetition rules must therefore be tracked separately.
How We Help on Legal.ge
A non-compliance case requires precise analysis of the fine steps, the deadlines and the processes. On Legal.ge you can consult an experienced lawyer in food safety and administrative law who will assess your situation and assist you in dealings with the regulator. Fill in the request form on the site and receive qualified assistance.