The Delhi High Court ruled that until and unless there is a policy decision taken by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) as to whether certain products have to be prohibited, and if so, then in what manner, the consignments of the petitioner cannot be seized or detained selectively. Thus, the Court directed the provisional release of the subject imported products in terms of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Court also directed the CBIC to proceed with conducting the inter-ministerial consultation in respect of the uniform policy permitting or prohibiting the import of products declared as ‘body massagers’ or sex toys, and place its stand by the next date of hearing on December 09, 2025.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Shail Jain observed 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.
Since, in the present case, there is an absence of uniformity, which is evident from the fact that the Customs Department has permitted other companies to import identical products without any objection, the Bench emphasised that it would be necessary for the CBIC and the Customs Department to take a clear and uniform policy decision, which cannot be taken on subjective opinion but on national standards.
As the SCN issued to the petitioner is pending adjudication, and the detention of the subject imported products appears to be arbitrary, the Bench directed that the subject imported products be provisionally released, subject to furnishing a bond from the petitioner in the appropriate form and manner.
Briefly, opining that the imported products have been mis-declared by the petitioner as body massagers which are in fact sex toys, being prohibited from import under the Notification No. 01/1964-Customs dated 18th January, 1964, on the ground of being obscene products, the same were seized. Hence, the petitioner had sought for release of the imported products.
Appearances:
Advocates Piyushi Garg, Ananay Chopra, Ajay Kumar Yadav, Chandravijay Sharma, Hardik Saxena, and Rajat Yadav, for the Petitioner/ Taxpayer
Advocates Akshay Amritanshu, Drishti Rawal, Mayur Goyal, and Sarthak Srivastava, for the Respondent/ Revenue
