REBOOK INDIA COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions of fact and that of law arise for decision-making. Hence, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this order.

(2.) THE petitioner a manufacturer of sports goods including footwear has its authorised dealers in Belgaum, amongst others, in all parts of this country. On 29-3-2006, and 5-4-2006, the 4th respondent is said to have searched the showroom of the petitioner's distributor M/s. Square Cut and M/s. Foot Mark, respectively, and seized shoes in packages said to be in violation of Sections 39, 63 of the standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (for short 'act') read with Rules 33 (v) and 23 (1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (for short, 'pc Rules' ). The inspection, it is said, disclosed that the package in which the shoe was packed, did not contain the Maximum Retail Price (M. R. P.) inclusive of all taxes, in violation of Section 2 (r) of Section 39 and 63 of the Act and PC Rules. The 4th respondent issued the notice dated 8-4-2006 and 26-5-2006 Annexure-"c", in each of the writ petitions, pointing out to the contravention of law and informing the petitioner that the violations were compoundable under Section 73 of the Act and directed its appearance before the Compounding Authority, failing which a complaint would be lodged before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Hence, these writ petitions for the following reliefs:

(3.) THE petitions are opposed by filing Statement of Objections dated 15-7-2008 of Respondents 1 and 2, inter alia, contending Section l (3) (d) of the Act being an enabling provision does not require the Central Government to issue separate notifications specifying each and every commodity in packaged form so as to bring them under the provisions. of the Act. The fact that the petitioner's products are admittedly packed in cartons and delivered to its dealers for retail trade goes without saying that the PC Rules apply and the non-compliance of which has resulted in the action complained of. In addition, it is stated that the printing on the package the maximum retail price inclusive of the taxes is for the benefit of the consumer without which the consumer will be placed in a disadvantageous position, leading to exploitation at the various levels of trade. According to the respondent, the petitioner's commodities in packed form do not fall within the exception provided for under Rule 34. The decisions of the Madras High Court in Philips India Limited v. Union of India, 2002 Writ LR 140 as well as that of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in titan Watches Limited v. Senior Inspector, legal Metrology Weight and Measures Department, AIR 2003 AP 175 and Eureka forbes Ltd. v. Union of India, 2003 (2) ALD 742 : (AIR 2003 AP 275), are said to be carried in appeal, pending before the Appellate court. In addition, it is contended that the definition of the term 'commodity in Packaged form' under Section 2 (b) of the Act refers to 'units suitable for sale' and that the same applies to a pair of shoes packed in cartons. It is further contended under the notification dated 24-11-2000, the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce relating to import policy mandates that all packaged products subject to the pc Rules when packed and sold in domestic market in accordance with all the provisions of the said Rules when imported into India. Having regard to the salient features of the act and the laudable objective behind which it was enacted, to subserve the customer and to standardise the rates, the petitioner's shoes sold in packaged form when taken out for testing or examination, does not change its character as a packaged commodity.