2025 (10) TMI 1345 - HC - Customs

Customs seizure of imported 'face rollers' alleged as sex toys-continued detention quashed; provisional release ordered on bond and duty.

Customs continued seizure of imported products described as 'face rollers' on the allegation they were sex toys/obscene goods, despite an order for ... Seeking release of imported goods - provisional release - mis-declared as ‘Face Roller (Beauty Care Products)’ whereas the same are sex toys and sex foreplay cards - differential duty - HELD THAT:- This Court is already seized of two matters titled Techsync vs. The Superintendent Of Customs SiibAcc ImportsAnd Ors. [2025 (11) TMI 264 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where similar products have been seized by the Customs Department on the ground that the same are sex toys and obscene products which are prohibited from import. The Court has heard the parties and perused the documents placed on record as also the order for provisional release dated 17th June, 2025. As per the said order, no reason has been provided for continued seizure of the subject import products. Further, it is not disputed that similar products for other companies have been permitted for clearance by the Customs Department. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes (“CBIC”) has been directed to take a policy decision in respect of import of the similar products as sex toys, the Court is of the opinion that the subject imported products are liable to be provisionally released. 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. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether the seized imported products, alleged by Customs to be mis-declared and to 'appear to be' sex toys/sex foreplay cards, were liable to be provisionally released when the record disclosed no stated reason for their continued seizure and similar products had been cleared for other importers. (ii) What conditions and directions ought to govern such provisional release, and whether Customs should remain at liberty to initiate statutory proceedings (including issuance of a show cause notice) notwithstanding provisional release. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Provisional release of seized goods alleged to be mis-declared/'sex toys' Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court considered provisional release in the context of the statutory mechanism invoked by Customs for provisional release of seized goods (the order on record reflected release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 for the non-disputed part of the consignment). Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the provisional release order already passed for the remainder of the consignment and noted that, as per that order, no reason had been provided to justify the continued seizure of the subject products. The Court further treated as significant the undisputed position that similar products imported by other companies had been permitted for clearance by the Customs Department, undermining the justification for continued retention of the petitioner's goods at this stage. The Court also took into account that, in related matters involving similar goods, the competent policy-making authority had been directed to take a stand/policy decision on the importability of such products and that an inter-ministerial consultation was stated to be underway. In that backdrop, the Court considered provisional release appropriate pending policy clarity and further adjudicatory steps. Conclusion: The Court held that the subject imported products were liable to be provisionally released. Issue (ii): Conditions for provisional release and preservation of Customs' enforcement powers Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court directed provisional release by requiring a bond and payment of applicable customs duty, reflecting the balance contemplated in provisional release mechanisms. Interpretation and reasoning: To balance the importer's interest in release with Customs' interest in securing revenue and ensuring compliance, the Court ordered release subject to furnishing a bond 'in the appropriate form and manner' and payment of applicable duty, and fixed a time-bound schedule for completion of release. Simultaneously, the Court clarified that provisional release would not preclude statutory action on merits and expressly preserved Customs' ability to proceed in accordance with law. Conclusion: The Court directed provisional release within one week of furnishing the bond and payment of applicable duty, and held that Customs remained free to issue a show cause notice and pursue proceedings under law; all rights and remedies were kept open.