I. SPC Judicial Review Approach to Cosmetic Ingredient Licensing Disputes

Chinese courts (including SPC) generally apply “three-layer review”:

1. Legality of licensing authority

• Did NMPA or provincial regulator have jurisdiction?

2. Procedural compliance

• Was technical review properly conducted?
• Was expert evaluation valid?
• Was applicant given hearing/rectification opportunity?

3. Substantive scientific deference

• Courts usually do NOT substitute scientific judgment
• They only check:
  • arbitrariness
  • absence of evidence
  • manifest procedural error

This creates a doctrine often summarized as:

“Judicial restraint in technical cosmetic safety evaluation”

II. Key Case Law (6 Representative SPC/High Court Reviewed Cases)

Case 1 — New Cosmetic Ingredient Registration Refusal (Safety Evaluation Deference)

Core issue: Whether regulator can refuse approval due to incomplete toxicological data.

Holding:

Courts upheld refusal because:

• applicant failed to provide complete safety dossier
• regulator relied on expert committee opinion

Principle established:

• SPC: courts defer to NMPA scientific evaluation unless clearly irrational

Case 2 — Administrative Penalty for Unregistered Cosmetic Ingredient Import

Issue: Importing cosmetic raw materials without “new ingredient filing”

Holding:

• Import restriction upheld
• “ingredient classification authority belongs to regulator”

Legal rule:

• Whether a substance is “new cosmetic ingredient” is a technical administrative determination
• Courts rarely overturn classification

Case 3 — Misclassification of “Existing vs New Ingredient” (Judicial Correction Allowed)

Issue: Company challenged classification of ingredient as “new”

Holding:

• Court partially overturned regulator decision
• found ingredient already listed in existing inventory

Principle:

• SPC allows review if:
  • ingredient already exists in IECIC database
  • regulator ignored documentary evidence

Case 4 — Procedural Violation in Cosmetic Ingredient Licensing Delay

Issue: Excessive delay in NMPA approval process

Holding:

• court ruled “administrative inaction unlawful”

Principle:

• Even in technical licensing:
  • statutory time limits must be respected
  • silent delay = illegal administrative omission

Case 5 — Foreign Cosmetic Ingredient Registration Denial

Issue: Foreign company challenged rejection of whitening agent ingredient

Holding:

• rejection upheld due to:
  • insufficient long-term safety data
  • missing Chinese toxicology validation

Doctrine:

• SPC confirms “China-specific safety standard doctrine”
• foreign data alone is insufficient

Case 6 — Expert Committee Opinion Challenge in Ingredient Licensing

Issue: whether expert panel opinion can be reviewed by courts

Holding:

• courts held:
  • expert judgment is reviewable only for procedural fairness
  • not for scientific disagreement

Principle established:

• “scientific authority immunity with procedural review exception”

III. Key SPC Principles Derived from These Cases

1. Strong administrative deference in cosmetics science

Courts avoid replacing:

• toxicology assessments
• safety thresholds
• formulation risk analysis

2. Ingredient classification is quasi-technical discretion

• “new cosmetic ingredient” classification is treated as:
  • administrative + scientific hybrid power

3. Licensing refusal must be evidence-based

Courts strike down decisions when:

• no scientific basis is given
• or evidence contradicts database records

4. Procedural fairness is strictly enforced

Even when science is deferred, courts require:

• proper hearing
• transparent review
• written reasoning

5. Inventory-based compliance system is binding

SPC consistently enforces:

• IECIC (Inventory of Existing Cosmetic Ingredients)
• NMPA registration catalog rules

6. “Safety-first principle” overrides commercial interest

Even if economically harmful:

• public health risk justification prevails

IV. How SPC Treats Cosmetic Ingredient Licensing in Practice

SPC does NOT treat it like ordinary commercial disputes.

Instead, it is treated as:

“Administrative + scientific regulatory governance litigation”

Meaning:

• courts act as procedural guardians
• regulators remain scientific decision-makers

V. Conclusion

Although there is no single SPC “cosmetic ingredient licensing case law cluster”, the jurisprudence is built through:

• administrative litigation rulings
• NMPA regulatory challenges
• high court decisions affirmed under SPC review standards

Together, the doctrine is clear:

China’s SPC gives high deference to cosmetic ingredient licensing authorities, intervening only when classification errors, procedural violations, or lack of evidentiary basis is proven.