Высший суд Андхра-Прадеша отменил преследование Samsung за отсутствие габаритов на упаковке смартфонов

- Home - / - High Courts - / - Andhra Pradesh High Court - / - AP High Court Quashes Proceedings... AP High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Samsung Over Non-Declaration Of Mobile Phone Dimensions Under Legal Metrology Rules Ritika Verma 14 Aug 2026 12:40 PM IST The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mobile phone manufacturers need not declare the dimensions of their devices on the package unless the size of the commodity is “relevant” under Rule 6(1)(f) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011.For context, Rule 6(1)(f) requires the package to declare the dimensions of a commodity only where its size is relevant, while Section 18... This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers Subscribe Premium INR 1099+GST Your support helps us to bring you more content at an affordable subscription scheme !!! All payment options available The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that mobile phone manufacturers need not declare the dimensions of their devices on the package unless the size of the commodity is “relevant” under Rule 6(1)(f) of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules 2011. For context, Rule 6(1)(f) requires the package to declare the dimensions of a commodity only where its size is relevant, while Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 requires compliance with such declarations as are prescribed under the Rules. The case stemmed from Samsung India Electronics Private Limited's challenge to the action of the Legal Metrology authorities. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti examined whether the dimensions of a mobile phone were required to be declared under Rule 6(1)(f) and held that the requirement is not absolute. The Court observed: “A perusal of the provisions extracted supra, while Section 18 mandates only those declarations as may be prescribed, Rule 4 requires that every pre-packed commodity leaving the manufacturer‟s premises must bear the prescribed declaration. Rule 6(1)(f) outlines where the sizes of the commodity contained in the package are relevant. 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.” The proceedings arose after the Legal Metrology authorities inspected the premises of a Samsung retailer and seized three packages of Samsung Galaxy A31 mobile phones, alleging that they did not contain a declaration regarding the sizes/dimensions of the phones. A panchnama was drawn alleging violation of Sections 18 and 36 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 read with Rules 4 and 6(1)(f) of the 2011 Rules. Samsung sought release of the seized packages before the Inspector, Department of Legal Metrology. The Inspector held that the screen size/dimensions were required to be declared and that Samsung had violated Sections 18 and 36 of the Act. Samsung challenged the order before the Controller of Legal Metrology, Andhra Pradesh, but the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, Samsung preferred the present writ petition. Samsung contended that Rules 4 and 6(1)(f) did not require declaration of mobile phone dimensions, submitting that their price depends on factors such as storage capacity, processors and lenses. The State, on the other hand, argued that screen size was required to be declared as it influenced consumer choice. The Court held that dimensions would be “relevant” under Rule 6(1)(f) only when the commodity is sold or identified by its physical dimensions, the dimensions have a direct link with its price, and consumers primarily purchase it on that basis. If these conditions are not met, the requirement to declare dimensions would not apply and no penalty under Sections 18 and 36 would follow. The Court noted that Rule 15 links the declaration of dimensions and weight to the price of the commodity. Read with Rule 6(1)(f), the requirement applies only where size is a principal basis on which the commodity is sold. Referring to Rule 14, the Court observed that items such as bedsheets, sarees, towels and table cloths are sold by measurement, but held that the requirement cannot extend to commodities whose value and marketability are unrelated to their physical dimensions. Applying this principle to mobile phones, the Court observed: “A mobile phone is not a commodity of that description. It is sold, and understood by the consumer, by reference to its brand, model, processor, memory, camera and other functional specifications and, more importantly, by its declared retail price and not by reference to its physical dimensions.” The Court rejected the Legal Metrology authorities' contention that screen size becomes “relevant” merely because it may influence consumer preference or pricing. It held that the screen is only a component of the mobile phone and cannot be treated as a separate commodity requiring an independent declaration of its size. The Court also emphasised that the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 are delegated legislation made under Section 52 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and cannot go beyond the scope of the parent Act. It further held that, since Sections 18 and 36 carry penal consequences, they must be strictly construed and cannot be interpreted beyond their plain and ordinary meaning. Accordingly, the Court held that the invocation of Sections 18 and 36 of the Legal Metrology Act read with Rules 4 and 6(1)(f) of the 2011 Rules against Samsung could not be sustained. The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the proceedings, including the appellate order, with no order as to costs. Case Title: Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Case No.: Writ Petition No. 19262 of 2020 Counsel for the Petitioner: Varun Byreddy Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP for Civil Supplies