Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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