CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

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