<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (11) TMI 1742 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782274</link>
    <description>Imported massagers meant only for soothing or general wellness were treated as wellness products, not as therapeutic medical devices, so approval under the Medical Devices Rules, 2017 was not required. The absence of an Extended Producer Responsibility registration certificate did not, by itself, bar provisional release where the applicable public notice allowed the application to be filed after release and an application had already been made in one instance. Review was refused because no ground for reconsideration was shown, the objections were already available earlier, similar consignments had been cleared, and the earlier release direction was maintained with costs imposed on the Customs Department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 11:43:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=867500" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1742 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782274</link>
      <description>Imported massagers meant only for soothing or general wellness were treated as wellness products, not as therapeutic medical devices, so approval under the Medical Devices Rules, 2017 was not required. The absence of an Extended Producer Responsibility registration certificate did not, by itself, bar provisional release where the applicable public notice allowed the application to be filed after release and an application had already been made in one instance. Review was refused because no ground for reconsideration was shown, the objections were already available earlier, similar consignments had been cleared, and the earlier release direction was maintained with costs imposed on the Customs Department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782274</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>