MEA AME Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court is currently examining a petition filed by MEA AME Pvt. Ltd. challenging the seizure of imported empty atomizer devices by the customs authorities. The devices were confiscated under the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and Advertisement) Act, 2019. The petitioner contends that the seized goods are intended to be filled with a herbal product and sold as a medical device for smoking de-addiction, for which they possess a license issued by the State Licensing Authority, Haryana, under the Medical Devices Rules, 2017.
Counsel for the petitioner, Vikas Pahwa, argued before Justice that since the final product (atomizers filled with the herbal substance) is licensed as a Class A medical device, the imported empty atomizers should not be considered prohibited electronic cigarettes under the Act. He drew the court’s attention to Section 3(d) of the Act, which defines an “electronic cigarette” but explicitly excludes “any product licensed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.” The petitioner asserts that because their final product holds a valid license, the initial import of the empty components falls outside the purview of the E-Cigarettes Act and therefore, the customs authorities lacked the jurisdiction to seize them.
The central legal question before the High Court is whether the imported empty atomizer devices can be subjected to seizure under the E-Cigarettes Act, considering the petitioner’s claim that the eventual product is a licensed medical device. This raises further pertinent issues for the court’s consideration. Firstly, the court will need to determine whether the petitioner is obligated to obtain a license from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, to qualify for the exemption outlined in Section 3(d) of the E-Cigarettes Act. Secondly, the court will consider whether the empty devices, in their unassembled state and without the herbal contents, independently qualify for exemption under the Act, given that the existing license pertains specifically to the final herbal product.
Acknowledging the complexities of the matter, the Delhi High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit within four weeks, addressing all the raised issues and any other relevant aspects of the case. The petitioner has been granted two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit. Furthermore, the court has instructed the petitioner to produce the physical products in question at the next hearing, scheduled for April 30, 2025. This production will likely aid the court in understanding the nature of the devices and their intended use in relation to the existing license.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
