Delhi High Court Orders Provisional Release Of Seized ‘Body Massagers’; Directs CBIC To Conduct Inter-Ministerial Consultation On Policy Governing Import Of Massagers/Sex Toys
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain ordered the provisional release of imported consignments seized by Customs on the allegation that they were prohibited goods. The Court observed that the items, declared as body massagers, had been classified by officials as sex toys under an old customs notification, and held that such determination could not rest on individual discretion without consistent standards. Highlighting the need for clarity, the Bench directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to hold inter-ministerial consultations to frame a uniform policy on permitting or prohibiting the import of products described as body massagers or sex toys, ensuring uniformity in customs enforcement and decision-making.
The petitioner, engaged in importing and supplying products described as body massagers, filed petitions seeking release of consignments seized by the Customs Department. The consignments, imported in December 2024 and January 2025, were declared under Customs Tariff Heading No. 90191090 as “Mechano-Therapy Appliances; Massage Apparatus.” The Customs Department seized the consignments through panchanamas dated 24 January 2025 and 31 January 2025, alleging misdeclaration and classifying the products as prohibited goods under Notification No. 01/1964-Customs dated 18 January 1964. The Department contended that the items were sex toys and therefore obscene articles prohibited from import and punishable under Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It further alleged that the products lacked required certification from the Drug Controller General of India and the Extended Producer Responsibility Registration under the Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022.
The petitioner disputed the classification, asserting that the imported products were body massagers, not sex toys, and relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in Commissioner of Customs v. DOC Brown Industries LLP (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 864) concerning similar products. The petitioner also claimed that identical goods of other companies, including M/s. Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd., had been permitted for import. The Court, noting that the Customs Department admitted no contrary instructions regarding the imports by other companies, directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to clarify whether the import of such products was uniformly prohibited or permitted. CBIC informed that it sought to hold inter-ministerial consultations before arriving at a policy decision. The matter was thereafter heard on 30 October 2025, when the Court considered the pending show cause notice dated 25 July 2025 and the issue of selective enforcement in the absence of a uniform national policy.
The Court recorded that “the primary objection raised by the Customs Department is that the imported products are sex toys and therefore, are obscene products, import of which is prohibited under the 1964 Notification.” The Bench observed that the question was “whether the imported products have been mis-declared by the Petitioner as body massagers and are in fact sex toys.”
The Court noted that this issue “has already been decided by the Bombay High Court in DOC Brown Industries (supra),” where it was stated that “massagers certainly cannot be compared with the companion items in the said entries which are in the nature of book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation, figure or article.” The Bombay High Court had recorded that it was “totally unwarranted and in our opinion, perverse for the Commissioner to take recourse to clause (ii) of the said notification to regard the goods in question as prohibited goods.” The Delhi High Court agreed with this view, observing 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.”
The Bench further referred to Ajay Goswami v. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 143, quoting that “the test for judging a work should be that of an ordinary man of common sense and prudence and not an out of the ordinary or hypersensitive man.” The Court observed: “the definition of obscenity differs from culture to culture… Many cultures have produced laws to define what is considered to be obscene.”
Referring to Aveek Sarkar v. State of W.B., (2014) 4 SCC 257, the Bench stated: “While judging as to whether a particular photograph, an article or book is obscene, regard must be had to the contemporary mores and national standards and not the standard of a group of susceptible or sensitive persons.” It recorded: “We have, therefore, to apply the community standard test rather than the Hicklin test to determine what is obscenity.”
The Court observed 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.” It stated: “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.”
The Court directed: “Accordingly, let the subject imported products be provisionally released subject to furnishing a bond from the Petitioner in the appropriate form and manner. Upon the bond being furnished and the applicable customs duty being paid by the Petitioner, the consignments shall be provisionally released to the Petitioner within one week.”
“In the meantime, let Petitioner file a reply to the SCN and participate in the proceedings which shall continue in accordance with law. A proper hearing shall be provided to the Petitioner and a reasoned order shall be passed taking into consideration the discussion hereinabove.”
“Further, let the CBIC proceed with conducting the inter-ministerial consultation in respect of the uniform policy permitting or prohibiting import of products declared as ‘body massagers’ or sex toys, considering the position discussed hereinabove. Let CBIC place its stand before the Court by the next date of hearing by way of an affidavit.”
“Registry is directed to communicate this order to the OSD (Legal), CBIC through email (Osd-legal@gov.in) for necessary information and compliance. Let Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, also communicate this order to the OSD (Legal), CBIC for necessary information and compliance. List for reporting compliance on 9th December 2025.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Piyushi Garg, Mr. Ananay Chopra, Mr. Ajay Kumar Yadav, Mr. Chandravijay Sharma, Mr. Hardik Saxena, and Mr. Rajat Yadav, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Drishti Rawal, Mr. Mayur Goyal, and Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Advocates.
Case Title: Techsync v. The Superintendent of Customs, SIIB ACC Imports and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9610-DB
Case No.: W.P.(C) 3542/2025 & W.P.(C) 3543/2025
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain
