Provisional release of misdeclared imported consignments pending CBIC policy decision, subject to bond, duty payment within one week

The HC directed provisional release of the imported consignments, held to have been misdeclared, pending a CBIC policy decision on whether such items are prohibited; release is conditional on furnishing a bond and payment of applicable customs duty, to be effected within one week and compliance to be reported on 9 Dec 2025. The court relied on precedent including a Bombay HC decision and the SC's Community Standard Test for obscenity, noting inconsistent treatment by Customs and ruling that consignments cannot be selectively seized until CBIC formulates policy.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether consignments declared as "body massagers" can be treated as obscene "articles" or "sex toys" prohibited from import under Notification No. 01/1964-Customs (the 1964 Notification).

2. Whether Customs officials may, in the absence of uniform policy or guidelines from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), detain or seize such consignments selectively on the basis of subjective impressions about potential use.

3. Whether imported devices claimed to be therapeutic/medical require prior approval or certification from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) for import and clearance, and related ancillary compliance requirements (e.g., Extended Producer Responsibility for battery-operated items) that may justify continued detention.

4. Whether provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 is appropriate pending adjudication where seizure appears arbitrary and uniform policy is lacking.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Classification under the 1964 Notification - whether "body massagers" fall within "any obscene ... article" and are therefore prohibited

Legal framework: The 1964 Notification prohibits import of "any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation, figure or article." Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to IPC Section 292) defines obscenity by reference to lasciviousness, prurient appeal and tendency to deprave or corrupt, applying the community-standard test as expounded by higher court jurisprudence.

Precedent treatment: The Bombay High Court's decision in DOC Brown Industries (reproduced and relied on) rejected classification of body massagers as prohibited obscene articles under the 1964 Notification and criticized reliance on subjective perception of Customs officers. Supreme Court authorities (e.g., Ajay Goswami; Aveek Sarkar) apply contemporary community standards and reject hypersensitive/hicklin-style tests.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court adopts ejusdem generis construction of clause items in the 1964 Notification, reasoning that companion items listed (books, drawings, figures) are of a different genus than mechanical devices such as massagers. The Court holds that mere possibility of alternative use (i.e., as a sexual device) does not convert a lawful importable article into a prohibited obscene article. Subjective imagination of an officer, or reliance on personal views, cannot substitute for objective legal criteria, particularly where similar products are sold domestically without prohibition.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - (a) ejusdem generis reading excludes mechanical massagers from the scope of the 1964 Notification's list of prohibited items; (b) determination of obscenity must follow community-standard jurisprudence and cannot rest on individual official's subjective perceptions. Obiter - observations on contemporary efficacy of a six-decade-old notification and broader policy observations about uniformity, while influential, are ancillary to the core holding.

Conclusion: The consignments declared as body massagers cannot be categorically deemed obscene or prohibited under the 1964 Notification on the grounds relied upon by Customs; classification must be objective and consistent with precedent applying the community-standard test.

Issue 2: Legitimacy of selective detention/seizure in absence of CBIC policy - role of uniform guidelines

Legal framework: Administrative action under Customs law must adhere to principles of reasonableness, legitimacy and fairness; uniform policy from CBIC governs consistent import classification and enforcement practices.

Precedent treatment: Bombay High Court criticized reliance on subjective impressions and stressed need for objective evaluation and consistent application. Supreme Court jurisprudence on obscenity demands contemporary community standards rather than idiosyncratic enforcement.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court identifies inconsistent treatment - identical products permitted for import for some companies while seized from others - and concludes that selective detention without a uniform policy or guidelines results in arbitrariness. The Court directs CBIC to conduct inter-ministerial consultation and take a definitive uniform policy stand on whether products declared as body massagers/sex toys are to be prohibited.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - selective application of prohibition absent a uniform policy is arbitrary and cannot sustain continued detention; administrative uniformity is required. Obiter - procedural suggestions to CBIC regarding inter-ministerial consultation are pragmatic directives ancillary to the judgment.

Conclusion: In the absence of a uniform CBIC policy, selective seizure/detention of the subject consignments is arbitrary and impermissible; CBIC must clarify position and ensure consistent application.

Issue 3: Requirement of DCGI approval and ancillary regulatory compliances (e.g., EPR certification for battery-operated devices)

Legal framework: Import of therapeutic devices may attract regulatory oversight including DCGI certification; battery-operated products may attract Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) under Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022. Customs may raise such compliance as grounds in show-cause proceedings.

Precedent treatment: The judgment notes reliance by Customs on lack of DCGI certification and EPR registration as grounds in the SCN but does not treat these contentions as determinative in the context of provisional release when seizure appears arbitrary.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court records Customs' pleaded grounds (alleged absence of DCGI licensing, absence of EPR registration) but emphasizes that these regulatory issues are matters for adjudication in the pending SCN proceedings. The Court directs the petitioner to participate in those proceedings and file replies, ensuring a reasoned adjudication; however, such regulatory non-compliances do not justify continued selective detention pending adjudication where arbitrariness is evident.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - regulatory compliance issues must be addressed through proper adjudicatory proceedings; they do not validate arbitrary selective detention. Obiter - guidance that petitioner must file reply and be afforded full opportunity in the SCN proceedings.

Conclusion: DCGI approval and EPR compliance are legitimate issues for adjudication, but they do not, in the present factual matrix of selective seizure and absence of CBIC policy, justify continued detention without offering provisional release and a fair adjudicatory opportunity.

Issue 4: Provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act pending adjudication

Legal framework: Section 110A permits provisional release of goods seized under section 110 on furnishing bond and security, pending adjudication by adjudicating authority.

Precedent treatment: Courts routinely grant provisional release where detention appears arbitrary or where rights of party demand interim relief subject to enforcement of terms (bond, payment of duty) and without prejudicing final adjudication.

Interpretation and reasoning: Given the absence of uniform policy, existence of inconsistent treatment by Customs, and the pendency of the SCN, the Court finds detention arbitrary in the present case. To balance interests, the Court orders provisional release upon furnishing appropriate bond and payment of applicable customs duty, while leaving SCN proceedings to run their course and reserving rights of all parties.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - provisional release under Section 110A is appropriate where seizure/detention appears arbitrary and policy uniformity is lacking, subject to bond and duty payment; further adjudication to proceed on merits. Obiter - procedural directions as to timelines for release and CBIC reporting are ancillary.

Conclusion: Subject imported consignments to be provisionally released within one week upon bond and payment of applicable duty; petitioner to participate in and be afforded proper hearing in SCN proceedings; all rights preserved.

Cross-reference

Issues 1 and 2 are interlinked: substantive classification under the 1964 Notification (Issue 1) requires application of community-standard tests and ejusdem generis construction, which in turn demands a uniform administrative approach (Issue 2); Issue 3 (regulatory compliance) is separable and to be adjudicated in SCN proceedings; Issue 4 provides the interim remedy calibrated to the findings on Issues 1-3.

---