Strict construction of obscene goods notification leaves body massagers outside prohibition, so confiscation and penalties fail.

Imported body massagers could not be treated as prohibited obscene goods under the customs notification because the listed categories of books, pamphlets, papers, drawings, paintings, representations, figures or articles had to be construed strictly and, where applicable, ejusdem generis. The High Court held that the goods did not squarely fall within that prohibited class, and that a supposed objectionable secondary use or personal perception was insufficient to justify confiscation. The fact that similar goods were sold in the domestic market also supported the conclusion that the items were not prohibited. Confiscation and penalties were therefore unsustainable, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported body massagers could be treated as prohibited obscene goods under the customs notification and liable to confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The notification prohibiting import of obscene books, pamphlets, papers, drawings, paintings, representations, figures or articles had to be construed ejusdem generis. On that construction, body massagers could not be equated with the listed items. The adjudicating authority's conclusion rested on personal perception and an assumed alternative use, not on legally sustainable material showing that the goods fell within the prohibited category. The fact that similar goods were sold in the domestic market was also a relevant consideration. Mere possibility that an item may be put to an objectionable use could not, by itself, justify treating it as prohibited when its primary character remained that of a body massager.

Conclusion: The goods were not prohibited goods under the notification, and confiscation and penalties could not be sustained; the challenge by the Revenue failed.

Final Conclusion: The common legal effect of the decision is that the import of the goods was held lawful, the confiscation order and penalties were set aside, and all connected revenue and penalty appeals were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A product cannot be branded as prohibited or obscene merely because it may admit of an objectionable secondary use; it must squarely fall within the notified prohibited class, which is to be construed strictly and, where applicable, ejusdem generis.

---