Body massagers wrongly banned as adult toys, classification based on personal perception not legal grounds rejected

The Bombay HC upheld the tribunal's decision allowing clearance of goods described as body massagers that were wrongly categorized as prohibited adult sex toys by the Commissioner. The court found the Commissioner's classification under Customs Notification No. 01/1964-Customs clause (ii) prohibiting obscene items was perverse and based on personal perception rather than legal grounds. The HC applied ejusdem generis principle, noting massagers cannot be compared with books, pamphlets, or drawings listed in the prohibition clause. The court emphasized that alternative uses of legally importable goods cannot justify prohibition, rejecting the revenue's appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods as "Adult Sex Toy" or "Body Massager".
2. Application of Customs Notification No. 01/1964-Customs dated 18 January 1964.
3. Interpretation of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Validity of the adjudicating officer's findings.

Summary:

Issue 1: Classification of Imported Goods
The respondent imported goods described as "Caresmith Wave Body Massager". The Commissioner of Customs classified these as "Adult Sex Toy" based on expert opinions and customer reviews. The Commissioner concluded that the goods were obscene and prohibited u/s 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal criticized this finding, stating it was based on the Commissioner's imagination and not supported by any legal mandate.

Issue 2: Application of Customs Notification No. 01/1964-Customs
The Commissioner relied on Customs Notification No. 01/1964-Customs, which prohibits the import of obscene articles. The tribunal found that the Commissioner misinterpreted the notification by categorizing body massagers as obscene. The tribunal noted that body massagers are not prohibited for sale within national boundaries, indicating no restriction on domestic transactions of such goods.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code
The Commissioner referred to Section 292(2) of the IPC, which defines obscenity. The tribunal held that the Commissioner's reliance on this section to deem the goods obscene was erroneous. The notification lacked a clear definition of "obscene," and the Commissioner's interpretation was deemed perverse and unwarranted.

Issue 4: Validity of the Adjudicating Officer's Findings
The tribunal found the Commissioner's findings to be "too wide off the mark." The adjudicating authority's decision was based on personal perception rather than legal evidence. The tribunal emphasized that the goods, being body massagers, did not fall under the prohibited category as per the notification. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the tribunal's decision to set aside the Commissioner's order.

Companion Appeals:
The companion appeals by the partners of M/s. Doc Brown Industries LLP, challenging the penalties imposed, were also dismissed. The dismissal was based on the same reasoning as the main appeal, confirming the tribunal's decision.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the tribunal's decision that the goods in question were not prohibited and the Commissioner's findings were untenable. The companion appeals were also dismissed.

---