2 weeks ago
Andhra Pradesh High Court sets aside Samsung screen labelling case
Samsung is a big company that makes phones.
Some officials in Andhra Pradesh, India, found three Samsung phone boxes in a shop.
The boxes did not say how big the phone screen was.
The officials said that broke a rule about writing important details on packages.
Samsung said the rule did not require them to write the screen size.
A judge named Justice Subba Reddy Satti studied the case.
He said the rule about size only matters when size is the main reason people buy a product.
For phones, people care more about memory, camera and model price than dimensions.
The judge made a three-part test to decide when sizes must be shown.
Because phones did not pass that test, the court stopped the case against Samsung.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside proceedings against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. over missing screen size declarations on mobile phone packaging.
The case stemmed from a June 2020 inspection in Kadapa district, where three Samsung Galaxy A31 packages were seized from a retailer's premises.
Authorities had alleged violations of Sections 18 and 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules 4 and 6(1)(f) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
The court held that the obligation to declare dimensions is not an absolute statutory requirement and applies only where the size of a commodity is relevant.
Applying a three-part test, the court concluded phones are bought on the basis of storage, RAM, model, MRP and manufacturer details rather than physical dimensions, and quashed the proceedings.
- Who
- Justice Subba Reddy Satti of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, petitioner Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., and legal metrology authorities in Andhra Pradesh.
- What
- The court set aside proceedings against Samsung for not declaring the screen size of mobile phones on product packaging.
- Where
- Andhra Pradesh, India; the packages were seized at a retailer's premises in Kadapa district.
- When
- The order was dated July 22; the phone packages were seized in June 2020.
- Why
- Because the court found the obligation to declare dimensions is not an absolute statutory requirement under the Legal Metrology rules and applies only where size is relevant to how a product is traded.
Regulator / Consumer Protection View
Samsung Company View
Mandatory screen size declaration
Regulator / Consumer Protection View
Legal metrology authorities treated the missing screen size declaration as a violation of Sections 18 and 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules 4 and 6(1)(f) of the 2011 Packaged Commodities Rules.
Samsung Company View
Samsung argued the rules did not require screen dimensions to be declared on phone packaging and that penalties did not apply in its case.
Penalty for non-disclosure
Regulator / Consumer Protection View
Authorities invoked penalty provisions for the failure to make the required declaration on the seized packages.
Samsung Company View
Samsung argued that Sections 18 and 36 apply only where a manufacturer makes an incorrect or misleading declaration, not where a detail has merely not been disclosed.
Relevance of physical dimensions for phones
Regulator / Consumer Protection View
Size was treated as a required detail for packaged commodities, since rules conditionally require dimensions to be declared.
Samsung Company View
The court held phones are identified and sold by brand, model, processor, memory and camera, not physical dimensions, so size is not a 'relevant' detail under Rule 6(1)(f).
Key facts
- Court
- Andhra Pradesh High Court
- Judge
- Justice Subba Reddy Satti
- Company
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
- Order date
- July 22
- Inspection date
- June 2020
- Seizure location
- Retailer's premises in Kadapa district, Andhra Pradesh
- Seized items
- Three Samsung Galaxy A31 mobile phone packages
- Outcome
- Petition allowed; proceedings set aside
Quotes
Justice Subba Reddy Satti
Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
“A conjoint reading of the provisions referred to supra demonstrates that the obligation to declare the dimensions is not an absolute statutory requirement. The requirement arises only where the size of the commodity is relevant.”
indianexpress.com
“Given the discussion supra, the invocation of Sections 18 and 36 of the Act read with Rules 4 and 6(1)(f) of the 2011 Rules against the Petitioner cannot be sustained. The orders impugned are liable to be set aside.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
TCL sues Samsung over alleged false Mini LED advertising
Mumbai Commission Revives Nine-Year-Old Complaint Over ₹30 Chakali Receipt
Kerala commission orders refund for ill-fitting school uniform pants
Supreme Court gives FSSAI last chance on warning labels
FSSAI proposes nutrition disclosures, not warning labels, on packaged foods
Why Some Indian Brands Fade While Others Survive
Last Chance Tonight: Top Smart TV Deals on Amazon.in
Onida reboots growth with iconic Devil mascot
