Calcutta High Court Admits Plea Challenging Customs Action Against Obscene Adult Sex Toys, Says Authority Cannot Invoke Subjective Morality
The Calcutta High Court has held that a writ petition challenging Customs authorities' decision to treat imported goods described as “obscene adult sex toys” as prohibited goods was maintainable, observing that when a statutory authority allegedly enters the realm of “subjective morality” while affecting a citizen's fundamental right to trade, the High Court would not shut its doors merely because an alternative statutory remedy was available.
Justice Smita Das De was hearing a petition filed by M/s Pracha Aalloy Private Limited challenging an order dated July 22, 2026 passed by the Customs authorities.
The Customs authorities had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, pointing out that the Customs Act, 1962 provides an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 128 before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), subject to the statutory pre-deposit under Section 129E.
Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Revenue argued that the petitioner could not bypass the statutory appellate mechanism and directly invoke the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Revenue also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in SEBI v. Mangalore Stock Exchange, submitting that the issue of maintainability should be decided at the threshold before the Court examined the merits of the case.
The petitioner opposed the objection, submitting that the availability of an alternative remedy does not constitute an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Relying on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks and Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer, the petitioner argued that the rule of alternative remedy was a rule of judicial discretion and that writ jurisdiction could be exercised where, among other circumstances, an order violated fundamental rights, principles of natural justice or suffered from a patent lack of jurisdiction.
The petitioner further alleged that the adjudicating authority had created an “unlegislated category of prohibition” based on “subjective moral biases”.
The High Court accepted the petitioner's contention on maintainability.
The Court noted that the petition raised a specific question as to whether the description of the goods as “obscene adult sex toys” and the alleged applicability of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, without identification of a specific statutory or notification-based prohibition, could by themselves render the goods “prohibited goods” under Section 11 of the Customs Act.
“The preliminary objection of the Revenue must fail,” the Court observed.
The Court held that it was not a case where the petitioner was merely seeking to bypass an available statutory remedy. Rather, the petitioner had raised an issue concerning whether the Customs authority had acted outside the scope of objective law.
The Court observed:
“when a statutory authority acts completely outside the boundaries of objective law and enters the realm of subjective morality thereby severely affecting a citizen's fundamental right to trade, the High Court will not shut its doors.”
The Court also noted the petitioner's allegation of “systematic misrepresentation of trade regulations across various custom houses”, observing that the issue required an “authoritative judicial pronouncement rather than a routine departmental appeal.”
“The precise statutory basis for the alleged prohibition, as also the basis for invoking Section 111(m) of the said Act, therefore, requires consideration,” the Court said.
The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute.
Finding the writ petition maintainable, Justice Das De directed that WPO/370/2026 along with GA 1 of 2026 be listed on October 9.
The respondents were directed to file a short affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks, with the petitioner permitted to file a reply within one week thereafter.
The Court also allowed and disposed of GA 2 of 2026, which concerned typographical errors in its earlier order dated August 21, 2026.
The corrections included changes to certain case numbers, names and figures in the earlier order. In particular, the amount of Rs 34,20,319.65 was directed to be corrected to Rs 7 lakh, while the other portions of the August 21 order were directed to remain unaltered.
Case: IA NO: M/S. PRACHA AALLOY PRIVATE LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Case No: WPO/370/2026