ORDER :

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking:

1.1. Quashing the compounding notice and all further proceedings vide ANNEXURE C bearing Case No./Seizure No.0691550 dated 28.01.2020 initiated by the Respondent for offences punishable under Sections 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009.

1.2. Direct the Respondent not to conduct any further raids or seizures in relation to the Petitioner’s products for the offences mentioned in Annexure C hereto;

1.3. Direct the Respondent to compensate the Petitioner for the costs incurred on account of the illegal and unjust seizure;

1.4. Pass such other orders or directions as the Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

Averments in the Petition:

2. It is averred in the Petition that:

2.1. Petitioner No.1 – M/s.Studds Accessories Limited is a highly reputed and world’s largest (in terms of volume) manufacturer of motorcycle Safety Accessories (Helmets, Visors etc.) under the brand name “Studds”. Petitioner No.2 is its distributor and Petitioner No.3 is its retailer.

2.2. In terms of Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act (for short, ‘LM Act’) read with Rule 2(h) and Rule 8 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (for short, ‘Packaging Rules’), the petitioners are required to comply with the directions in relation to mandatory declarations. The petitioners are required make certain declaration which are to be printed on a Principal Display Panel (for short, ‘PDP’).

2.3. The mandatory declarations which are common to every product upon which a label is affixed, such as, the name and address of the manufacturer, consumer care details including the address, phone number and email ID etc., are preprinted in the bottom portion of the PDP, the variable details like Maximum Retail Price (for short, ‘MRP’), quantity, content, size, manufacturing date, model and colour are printed on a label and affixed on the PDP.

2.4. This practice is being carried out by the petitioner No.1 so as to maintain consistency in the declaration as also to accommodate the above variables which would change from time to time on the basis of the product being sold, the quantity contained in the packaging, description of the contents, the date on which the said product has been manufactured, the model of the product being sold and the colour of the said product.

2.5. Though there are two different operations in terms of the mandatory declarations –

2.5.1. the information which is fixed or would not change being printed on the package itself and

2.5.2. the variables being printed on labels which are affixed on the packaging

This is stated to be in compliance with the applicable law viz., LM Act and Packaging Rules.

2.6. Despite petitioner No.1’s compliance of the LM Act and the Rules, the respondent-Inspector Legal Metrology Department has seized over 20 full face helmets of the Petitioner on 05.07.2019 from the place of business of one of its dealers i.e., petitioner No.3 alleging that the Petitioner has not made out the mandatory declarations on the package, namely:

2.6.1. the name and complete address of the manufacturer/packer/importer

2.6.2. the consumer care details are not marked which is in violation of Section 18 of the LM Act read with Rule 6(1)(a), Rule 6(1)(b) and 6(1)(aa) of the Packaging Rules, which are punishable under Section 36 of the LM Act.

2.7. It is further alleged that there are no receipt or information provided to petitioner No.3 for such seizure and thereafter a case has been registered and a notice issued under Section 48 of the LM Act on 15.11.2019 to petitioner No.3 in case the petitioner No.3 is interested in compounding the offence.

2.8. On 02.12.2019, the Petitioner’s authorised agent represented the case of the petitioners before the Respondent. When the said agent was informed by the Respondent that the preprinted information and the online information was grouped together at two different places in the PDP and as such, the same is not permitted and amounts to non-disclosure