Unlicensed import of cosmetics is prohibited goods under customs law; warehousing does not cure the statutory breach.

Imported cosmetics are regulated not only by the Customs Act, 1962 but also by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Cosmetics Rules, 2020. Goods brought into India without the requisite CDSCO registration or licence were treated as imported in breach of a mandatory statutory regime and therefore as prohibited goods under the Customs Act. Warehousing did not legalise the unlawful import, and Section 69 applied only to lawfully imported warehoused goods. On that basis, seizure under Section 110 and potential confiscation under Section 111 were held to be sustainable, and the claim for re-export was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether cosmetics imported without the requisite CDSCO registration/licence could be treated as lawful warehoused goods eligible for re-export, and whether the seizure and possible confiscation under the Customs Act were sustainable.

Analysis: The import of cosmetics into India was held to be governed not only by the Customs Act, 1962 but also by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Cosmetics Rules, 2020. The Court held that the expression "import" under the Customs Act is triggered when goods are brought into India from outside India, and that imported goods brought in breach of another applicable law fall within the statutory concept of "prohibited goods". Since the petitioner admittedly did not possess the requisite CDSCO registration/licence, the import contravened the mandatory regulatory regime. The Court further held that warehousing does not legalise an otherwise prohibited import and that Section 69 of the Customs Act applies only to lawfully imported warehoused goods, not to goods imported in violation of statutory restrictions. In view of the statutory breach, seizure under Section 110 and liability to confiscation under Section 111 were held to be attracted.

Conclusion: The petitioner's claim for re-export was rejected and the seizure was upheld; the goods were treated as prohibited goods imported in contravention of law, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because unlicensed import of cosmetics could not be regularised through warehousing or re-export, and the customs authorities were justified in proceeding against the goods under the confiscation provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods imported in violation of a mandatory statutory prohibition under another applicable law are prohibited goods under the Customs Act, and warehousing does not confer legality or entitle the importer to re-export as of right.

---