Conduct Inter-Ministerial Consultation On Whether Import Of Massagers/Sex Toys Is Allowed Or Not: Delhi High Court Tells CBIC

The bench opined that the question as to whether any product is obscene or not cannot, obviously, be left at the discretion of the Commissioner of Customs and other individual officials in the absence of uniform guidelines for consistent practice in this regard.

The bench further stated that it would be necessary for the CBIC and the Customs Department to take a clear and uniform policy decision that would be in line with contemporary times……… Such decisions cannot be taken on subjective opinion but on national standards, to ensure that such opinions are not being imposed selectively by the Customs officials on selected parties.

Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain were addressing the issue of whether the imported products have been mis-declared by the assessee/petitioner as body massagers and are in fact sex toys, which are prohibited from import under the 1964 Notification (Notification No. 01/1964-Customs dated 18th January, 1964) on the ground of being obscene products.

By Notification No. 01/1964-Customs dated 18th January, 1964, the Central Government had prohibited the import of obscene products.

In this case, the assessee/Petitioner engaged in the import and supply of products claimed to be 'body massagers'. The assessee had imported two consignments of the said products, which the Customs Department cleared for home consumption.

The assessee had thereafter imported two more consignments with the description of 'Head and Chic Massager' and 'Silicone Therapy Sleeve', which were seized by the Customs Department.

The primary objection raised by the Customs Department is that the imported products are sex toys, which appear to be items of sexual pleasure rather than body massagers. The said products, being obscene in nature, are prohibited from importation in India in terms of the 1964 Notification and are penalised under Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The assessee objects to the alleged classification of the imported products as sex toys and submits that the same are body massagers. It was argued that the imported products cannot be classified as obscene products in terms of the 1964 Notification.

The assessee aggrieved by the said seizure of the imported products has preferred these petitions seeking the release of the imported products.

The Court observed that the main allegation against the assessee is that there is a misdeclaration of the imported products and that the same are prohibited products in terms of Notification No. 01/1964-Customs dated 18th January, 1964. Thus, according to the Customs Department, the products in question are sex toys and are prohibited from import.

The bench referred to the case of Commr. of Customs v. DOC Brown Industries LLP, 2024 SSC Online Bom 864, in which the Bombay High Court was of the view that the terms contained therein would have to be read ejusdem generis, and thus, only products in the nature of book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation, figure or article, etc, would be prohibited. The products, such as 'body massagers' would not fall within the scope of the 1964 Notification.

At present, the absence of uniformity is evident from the fact that the Customs Department has permitted other companies to import identical products without any objection. In view of the same, until and unless there is a policy decision taken by the CBIC as to whether these products have to be prohibited, and if so, then in what manner, the consignments of the Petitioner's cannot be seized or detained in a selective manner, opined the bench.

The bench directed the department to provisionally release the imported products, subject to furnishing a bond from the assessee.

In view of the above, the bench further directed the CBIC to conduct inter-ministerial consultation in respect of the uniform policy permitting or prohibiting the import of products declared as 'body massagers' or sex toys.

Case Title: Techsync v. The Superintendent of Customs SIIB ACC Imports and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1470

Case Number: W.P.(C) 3542/2025

Counsel for Petitioner/Assessee: Ms. Piyushi Garg, Mr. Ananay Chopra, Mr. Ajay Kr Yadav, Mr. Chandravijay Sharma, Mr. Hardik Saxena & Mr. Rajat Yadav

Counsel for Respondent/Department: Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, SSC with Ms. Drishti Rawal, Mr. Mayur Goyal & Mr. Sarthak Srivastava