The Bombay High Court has overturned a decision made by the Commissioner of Customs Department to seize packages containing body massagers. The department claimed that the package could be used as a adult sex toy, which is not allowed to be imported, and that the action was based on an imaginary / probable use of the goods. It was clearly the figment of the Commissioners imagination and/or his personal judgment that the articles are prohibited things, the bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Kishor Sant declared.The seizure of goodsOn April 6, 2022, the products were seized by the Commissioner of Customs on the grounds that the body massagers might be used as adult sex toys. The consignment owners had filed an appeal with the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, citing their displeasure with the Commissioners judgment. While overturning the Commissioners decision, the tribunal harshly criticized it and stated that the Commissioners classification of the body massager as an adult sex toy was the product of the officers imagination alone.Commissioner statesAccording to the court, the Commissioner, who is the adjudicating officer, did not behave in a responsible manner that would have been anticipated of him when making decisions about the clearance of goods.What does the IPC saysSection 292(2) of the Indian Penal Code, which states that any book, pamphlet, paper, sketch, or other thing that is regarded as obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest, was also cited by the Customs Commissioner. However, the benchs stated devices, such as massagers, can in no way be equated to the companion goods in the aforementioned entries that are prohibited by the notification and take the form of books, pamphlets, papers, drawings, paintings, representations, figures, or articles, among other things.The Commissioner asserted that specialists opinions were sought out before deciding to forbid the goods because they believed the body massagers might be used for other applications.Bench rules in favor...However, the bench ruled that the mere fact that the items could be put to another use did not establish a prohibition. It seems that these specialists expressed a clear opinion that, while the item was unquestionably a body massager when it was imported, they also believed that the item may be utilized for the other purpose that the Commissioner had in mind, the bench stated.Massager or pleasure toy The Commissioner asserted that specialists opinions were sought out before deciding to forbid the goods because they believed the body massagers may be used for other applications. However, the bench ruled that the mere fact that the items could be put to another use did not establish a prohibition. It seems that these specialists expressed a clear opinion that, while the item was unquestionably a body massager when it was imported, they also believed that the item may be utilized for the other purpose that the Commissioner had in mind, the bench stated. The bench confirmed the tribunals decision and denied the commissioners plea.
