https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313085 Imported body massagers were examined under customs prohibition on obscene goods, but the notification covered obscene books, papers, drawings, representations and similar items, not such physical products. Obscenity could not be inferred from perceived misuse or presumed erotic use, and customs authorities could not expand the import ban by borrowing section 292 IPC. On that basis, confiscation under section 111(d) was held unsustainable. The direction to destroy the goods was also beyond adjudicatory power, and the penalties under sections 112 and 114AA failed because the alleged misdescription did not satisfy their statutory requirements once prohibited import was not established. en-us Thu, 11 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:14:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313085 Imported body massagers were examined under customs prohibition on obscene goods, but the notification covered obscene books, papers, drawings, representations and similar items, not such physical products. Obscenity could not be inferred from perceived misuse or presumed erotic use, and customs authorities could not expand the import ban by borrowing section 292 IPC. On that basis, confiscation under section 111(d) was held unsustainable. The direction to destroy the goods was also beyond adjudicatory power, and the penalties under sections 112 and 114AA failed because the alleged misdescription did not satisfy their statutory requirements once prohibited import was not established. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 11 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313085