Drugs & Cosmetics Law Must Be Strictly Enforced Even for Re-Exported Goods: Bombay HC Flags Public Health Risks of Sub-Standard Cosmetic Imports

The Bombay High Court while highlighting the public health risks of sub-standard cosmetic imports has observed that drugs and cosmetics law must be strictly enforced even for re-exported goods. The bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe have observed that products, more particularly being imported, concern the health of the people, wherever, even when the goods are sought to be re-exported. Thus, the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules framed thereunder read with provisions of the Customs Act, qua any imports are required to be strictly implemented, and more importantly, considering the larger public interest and the ill-effects of the sub-standard and unlicensed products, when they are being imported in a clandestine manner, and smuggled into the Indian territory. The petitioner company is engaged in the import and trading of cosmetics and FMCG products such as perfumes, creams, shampoo, conditioner, toothpaste, and other toiletry items. In November 2025, it imported three consignments of cosmetics from the United Arab Emirates and filed Warehousing Bills of Entry, intending to store the goods in a bonded warehouse rather than clearing them for domestic consumption. According to the company, the goods were not meant to be sold in the Indian market because it had not yet obtained the required Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The company claimed that it had applied for the licence earlier in May 2025 and had intended to re-export the goods if the approval was delayed. However, on 26 November 2025, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized the consignments under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, suspecting that the goods were undervalued and imported in violation of regulatory requirements. The DRI argued that the imports were illegal because cosmetics cannot be imported into India without prior CDSCO registration as required under the Cosmetics Rules, 2020. It contended that filing a warehouse bill of entry does not exempt an importer from complying with regulatory requirements applicable at the time of import. The authorities further alleged that the goods were grossly undervalued, with the importer declaring a value of about ₹1.64 crore, while a government-approved valuer estimated the value at over ₹10.09 crore. The imports were part of a scheme to circumvent regulatory restrictions on cosmetic imports. The petitioner had deliberately used the warehousing mechanism after learning that similar consignments from the same supplier were under investigation. Based on these allegations, the department argued that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act and could not be permitted to be re-exported until the investigation and adjudication process was completed. Dr. Sujay Kantawala on behalf of the importer contended that the seizure was arbitrary and contrary to the scheme of the Customs Act. The warehousing provisions are specifically designed to allow goods to be stored until regulatory requirements are met or alternative decisions are taken. The company never filed a bill of entry for home consumption, which clearly indicated that the goods were not intended for domestic sale. Since the CDSCO licence had not been granted, the only commercially viable option was to re-export the goods, which the company was willing to do at its own cost. The petitioner also challenged the reliance on a Chartered Engineer’s valuation, arguing that such an expert was not competent to assess the value of cosmetic products and FMCG items. The central question before the High Court was whether goods imported into India without regulatory approval could still be permitted to be re-exported from a bonded warehouse, or whether such goods must necessarily face confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act. The Court noted that there was never an intention of the petitioner-importer that the goods be imported only for the purpose of warehousing and/or re-export. Such case of the petitioner appears to be a complete afterthought being presented before the Customs Authorities as also before the Court, that the goods be permitted to be re-exported as they were not meant to be cleared for home consumption. The court did not do not find any material whatsoever to the effect that there was any prior intention before the imports were undertaken, that the goods were meant to be only stored i.e., being imported only for warehousing in India and thereafter to be re-exported. This is not recognized in law. If this was to be the sole intention, the petitioner could not have applied for a CDSCO licence in May, 2025. The clear provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Cosmetics Rules 2020 as applicable to the imports of Cosmetics do not conceive a situation, that such goods can be brought into territorial waters merely for the purpose of warehousing and/or on that basis, that after the arrival of the goods, a license can be applied. This is totally unacceptable and in fact illegal. The court held that the provisions of law do not permit that these goods can be brought into the Country only for the purpose of warehousing and that too contravening and/or circumventing the provisions of law. The consequence of such contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner, would be to the effect that Indian territory permits prohibited goods to be brought into India, merely for the purpose of warehousing, on a specious consideration that warehousing is cheaper in India than in other countries, and therefore such unlicensed imports be permitted, for the goods to be ultimately re- exported. This would be too far fetched. The court ruled that the imports being per se illegal cannot be labelled to be legitimate or legal, merely because the petitioner intends to re-export the goods and for which no duty according to the petitioner is attracted. Case Details Case Title: Glamstone Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI Citation: JURISHOUR-274-HC-2026(BOM) Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 957 OF 2026 Date: 09/03/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Dr. Sujay Kantawala Counsel For Respondent: Jitendra B. Mishra Click Here To Read Order Read More: Customs Dept. Demands Excessive Bank Guarantee; Bombay HC Allows Provisional Release of Seized Boat on Rs. 75 Lakh Deposit

Drugs & Cosmetics Law Must Be Strictly Enforced Even for Re-Exported Goods: Bombay HC Flags Public Health Risks of Sub-Standard Cosmetic Imports

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : APRIL 4, 2026

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : APRIL 3, 2026

Service Tax on TV Serial Production Despite Perpetual Copyright Assignment Upheld: CESTAT

Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation, Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : APRIL 4, 2026

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : APRIL 3, 2026

Service Tax on TV Serial Production Despite Perpetual Copyright Assignment Upheld: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories