E-Paper
Delhi High Court junks Customs’ plea against release of ‘sex toy’ cargo
The dispute began when customs officials seized two consignments imported by Techsync under the categories “head and chic massagers” and “silicone therapy sleeve,” arguing that the products were in fact sex toys. The department had claimed that such items were prohibited under a 1964 notification and described them as objects appealing to “prurient interest”
The Delhi high court has dismissed, with costs of ₹50,000, the customs department’s petition seeking a review of its earlier order directing the release of two consignments seized on the allegation that they contained sex toys.
A bench of justices Prathiba M Singh and Shail Jain, in its November 21 order released this week, said the review plea lacked merit and that the importer, Techsync, was being subjected to unwarranted harassment.
“The court is clearly of the view that the petitioners are being harassed unnecessarily, when clearly the earlier consignments of the petitioners were cleared with objections, and the consignments of various third parties were also cleared,” the bench said.
The judges dismissed the review petition with costs of ₹25,000 in each case, directing that the amount be recovered from the salary of Jainendra Jain, assistant commissioner of customs.
The dispute began when customs officials seized two consignments imported by Techsync under the categories “head and chic massagers” and “silicone therapy sleeve,” arguing that the products were in fact sex toys. The department had claimed that such items were prohibited under a 1964 notification and described them as objects appealing to “prurient interest,” making them obscene under Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
On October 30, the high court rejected these arguments and ordered the release of the goods, noting that similar products were widely sold in India and that there was no prohibition on their sale. The bench had criticised the customs commissioner for relying on personal assumptions about the intended use of the massagers and for branding them as obscene merely on the speculative possibility that they could serve as sex toys. It had also noted that customs authorities had allowed other companies to import identical devices without objection, raising concerns of selective enforcement.
The court had further directed the Centre to conduct an inter-ministerial consultation to frame a clear policy on the import of sex toys, observing that the lack of regulatory clarity contributed to arbitrary decision-making.
In its review petition, the customs department argued that the imported products required licensing or certification from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and that Techsync lacked the mandatory “Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)” registration certificate under the Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022, since some items were battery-operated.
Techsync’s lawyer, Piyushi Garg, countered that these arguments had already been raised and rejected in October, and that the massagers did not require DCGI approval under the Medical Devices Rules, 2017, because they were not intended for therapeutic use.
Upholding its earlier ruling, the high court reaffirmed that DCGI certification was not applicable and said Techsync was free to seek an EPR certificate after the goods were released. The court dismissed the Centre’s plea in its entirety, marking yet another setback for the customs department in the case.
