{"id":294744,"date":"2023-06-16T10:00:58","date_gmt":"2023-06-16T04:30:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=294744"},"modified":"2023-06-21T08:39:52","modified_gmt":"2023-06-21T03:09:52","slug":"karnataka-hc-quashes-complaint-samsung-violation-legal-metrology-act-packaged-commodities-rules-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/16\/karnataka-hc-quashes-complaint-samsung-violation-legal-metrology-act-packaged-commodities-rules-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"[Relief for Samsung India] Karnataka HC quashes complaint on alleged violation of Legal Metrology Act and Packaged Commodities Rules"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Karnataka High Court:<\/b> While deciding the petition filed by Samsung India seeking to quash the proceedings against it for violation of provisions under Legal Metrology (Numeration) Rules, 2011<\/a>, Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011<\/a> and Legal Metrology Act, 2009<\/a>, the bench of Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.<\/b>*, held that the offences indicated by the Inspector, Department of Legal Metrology are applicable to retail packages and not to wholesale packages and therefore, on meticulous examination of the allegations, it was clearly evident that the complaint is tainted with malafides. The Court also held that the impugned complaint has grossly misinterpreted the provisions 2009 Act<\/a> and Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Background and Contentions:<\/b> Samsung India is prominent consumer and household electronics and appliances company and is in the business of manufacture, import, marketing and selling of consumer durable electronic products, home appliances and cellular mobile phones through its distributors and retailers.<\/p>\n

Inspector, Department of Legal Metrology inspected M\/s. ABM Tele Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru who is a distributor for Samsung India. While inspecting one pre-packed Samsung Galaxy Tab-4 manufactured by Samsung, it was found that the MRP printed was Rs. 14,000\/- which was not in conformity with Rule 4(2) of the Legal Metrology (Numeration) Rules, 2011<\/a> read with Section 6(2) and (3)<\/a> of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009<\/a>. The Inspector also alleged violation of Section 11 read with Section 29<\/a> of Metrology Act, 2009<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Inspector further alleged to have inspected one pre-packed (wholesale packaged product) containing 20 individual packages which did not have qualifying symbol ‘N’ for indicating the quantity as provided under Rule 13 (5)(ii) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011<\/a>. It was claimed that mere mentioning of Numeral ’20’ without qualifying unit ‘N’ amounts to violation of Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Vis-à-vis the first offence, Samsung India contended that combined reading of Section 52<\/a> and Section 10<\/a> of Metrology Act, 2009<\/a>, makes it quite clear that Numeration Rules, 2011<\/a> would apply only for weight, measure or number as detailed in Section 52(2)(f)<\/a> of Metrology Act, 2009<\/a> and therefore, it is not at all applicable for price\/MRP of packaged goods. The counsel also pointed out that MRP on pre-packaged goods should be as per Rule 2(m) of Packaged Commodities Rules, 2011<\/a> and not as per Numeration Rules, 2011<\/a>. It was further pointed out that the product in question is in conformity with the provisions of law and therefore, the Inspector has misinterpreted the provisions and rules and has arbitrarily issued notice for compounding the alleged offences without following the principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n

The respondent rebutted the afore-stated contentions by arguing that Samsung India was offered sufficient opportunity to offer explanation for compounding the offences. As they failed to offer satisfactory explanation, the Inspector was compelled to register the complaint.<\/p>\n

Court’s Assessment and Verdict:<\/b> Upon perusing the complaint and contentions raised by the parties, the Court stated that-<\/p>\n