Import of Cosmetics Without CDSCO Licence Constitutes 'Prohibited Goods': Bombay High Court

On 9 March, the Bombay High Court held that cosmetic products imported without the mandatory licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act qualify as “prohibited goods” under the Customs Act and refused to permit their re-export, upholding the seizure action taken by customs authorities.

A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe dismissed a writ petition filed by Glamstone Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., which had challenged the seizure of three consignments of cosmetics imported from Dubai.

The Bench stated:

“Admittedly the goods in question were imported into India without a licence. This was not permissible… Thus, the provisions of Section 2(33) which define prohibited goods… stand breached… thereby rendering the goods in question 'prohibited goods'.”

The petitioner imported several consignments of cosmetics and FMCG products and filed warehousing bills of entry, claiming the goods were not meant for domestic sale but for temporary storage and later re-export. It argued that since the products were not intended for home consumption, the absence of a licence from the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) should not bar re-export.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, citing undervaluation and regulatory violations. The authorities contended that import of cosmetics requires mandatory CDSCO registration under the Cosmetics Rules, 2020, and goods imported without such licence qualify as prohibited goods.

The High Court held that import without CDSCO registration was impermissible under law, rendering the goods prohibited under the Customs Act. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that warehousing and re-export intentions exempted compliance, noting that a warehouse bill of entry does not excuse regulatory obligations.

The Bench observed that there was no credible evidence showing the goods were genuinely intended for re-export, and the claim appeared to be an afterthought following seizure.

In view of the statutory framework under the Customs Act, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and Cosmetics Rules, 2020, the Court held the seizure action justified and the goods liable for confiscation. The Bench noted:

“Thus, the goods in question as imported by the petitioner being prohibited goods, the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act providing for seizure and the provision of Section 111 providing for confiscation of improperly imported goods, would stand attracted and applicable.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the seizure.

Appearance for the Petitioner: Dr. Sujay Kantawala a/w. Mr. Aditya Talpade, Mr. Pratik Karande, Ms. Diksha Talpade, Ms. Prajwal Padole, Mr. Akash Sable, Ms. Aishwarya Kantawala 

Appearance for the Respondent: Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr.. Ashutosh Mishra, Mr. Rupesh Dubey for the respondent, Mr. Shalabh Katiyar, Addl. Director, DRI present, Ms. Veenu Kavaria, Deputy Director, DRI present.