Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Goods Cannot be Deemed Obscene Based on Imaginative or Potential Misuse - Caresmith Wave Body Massagers Not Adult Sex Toys: Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Bombay High Court in a landmark judgment addressed the interpretation of ‘obscene’ under customs law and its applicability to imported goods. The court emphasized that the classification of imported items as ‘obscene’, particularly in the context of ‘Caresmith Wave Body Massagers’, should not rely on subjective perceptions or imaginative potential uses.

The issue revolved around the import of “Caresmith Wave Body Massagers,” which the Commissioner of Customs, NS-V classified as prohibited ‘Adult Sex Toys’ under Customs Notification No. 01/1964-Customs. This decision was based on the Commissioner’s perception that these massagers could potentially be used as sex toys. The case raised questions about the application of obscenity definitions under the Customs Act and the Indian Penal Code.

Objective Standards vs. Subjective Perceptions: The Court critiqued the subjective approach taken by the Commissioner. Justice G.S. Kulkarni noted, “Firstly, it was clearly the figment of the Commissioner’s imagination and/or his personal perception that the goods are prohibited items.”

Interpretation of Obscenity under Customs Law: The Court highlighted the need for an objective interpretation. “Any perverse application of law would fall foul of the rules of legitimacy and fairness expected from a quasi-judicial authority,” the Court observed.

Applicability of Customs Notification and IPC: The Court found that the Commissioner’s interpretation, influenced by personal views and not legal standards, failed to appropriately apply the customs notification and IPC provisions.

Decision: The High Court overturned the decision of the Commissioner of Customs, allowing the import of ‘Caresmith Wave Body Massagers’ and ruling them not to be ‘obscene articles’ under the relevant customs and penal provisions. The Court directed customs authorities to adhere to legal definitions and objective standards in determining the obscenity of imported goods.

Date of Decision: 20 March 2024.

Commissioner of Customs NS-V vs. Doc Brown Industries LLP,

Latest Legal News