Delhi High Court Penalizes Customs for Harassing Importers of Wellness Products

In a stern rebuke to administrative overreach, the Delhi High Court has dismissed review petitions filed by the Customs Department, upholding its earlier directive for the provisional release of imported "wellness" massagers. The bench, comprised of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, did not mince words, characterizing the Department’s legal challenge as a form of unnecessary harassment.

The Background of the Dispute

The dispute originated from the seizure of imported goods by the Superintendent of Customs (SIIB, ACC Imports), categorized by importers as massagers. The Customs Department had blocked these consignments, citing the lack of a Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) certificate and failing to produce Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) registration under the Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022.

The importers, TechSync and M/s. Debanjan Impex, challenged the seizure, noting that similar products are not only widely available on domestic e-commerce platforms but have also been cleared for other commercial entities, including major corporations like Reckitt Benckiser.

Arguments and Legal Friction

The Customs Department, in its review, contended that the massagers were essentially medical devices falling under the Medical Devices Rules, 2017, and thus required regulatory clearance. They further insisted on the EPR certification before clearing the goods.

However, the Petitioners successfully argued that the Department was deliberately ignoring its own procedural guidelines. Counsel for the Petitioners pointed to the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation’s (CDSCO) own FAQs, which clarify that massagers intended for "soothing or general wellness" and not for therapeutic use fall outside the scope of Medical Device regulations. Additionally, they highlighted a Public Notice (46/2023) confirming that EPR registration applications could be processed post-release, effectively invalidating the Department's stance as a ground for detention.

Key Observations

The Court expressed deep frustration with the Department’s selective enforcement, noting that identical goods had been previously imported and cleared without hindrance. The bench specifically noted:

• "Insofar as massagers are concerned, they do not require any approval under the Medical Device Rules, 2017 as they are not being used for therapeutic or alleviation of disease. They are only for wellness and soothing purposes."
• "The FAQs and the Public notice have been clearly concealed from the Court by the Customs Department."
• "The Customs Department is clearly harassing the Petitioners for no reason."

Highlighting the discriminatory nature of the detention, the Court remarked on the lack of justification provided by the authorities during hearings: "The plea regarding import of similar products being permitted by the Customs Department has been recorded in the writ petitions... However, there was no satisfactory answer given by the Respondents."

A Costly Lesson in Administrative Accountability

In a move intended to curb arbitrary bureaucratic detention, the Delhi High Court dismissed the review petitions and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 in each petition to be paid to the importers. Crucially, the Court directed that the cost be recovered directly from the salary of Mr. Jainendra Jain, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs involved in the case.

The Court has ordered the immediate provisional release of the imported goods within two working days, provided the importers comply with the (post-clearance) EPR filing requirements. The matter is set for further compliance reporting on December 9, 2025. This decision serves as a powerful reminder of the judiciary's role in guarding against the weaponization of bureaucratic procedure against businesses.