Two companies, including Techsync and another importer, landed in legal trouble after customs officials seized their consignments of body massagers at Delhi airports, deeming them prohibited sex toys under a 1964 customs notification banning obscene imports.
Officials alleged misdeclaration of goods like “head and chic massagers” and “silicone therapy sleeves” as therapeutic devices, claiming they required Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) approval and lacked Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) certificates under battery waste rules.
Importers countered that these are legitimate wellness products for soothing purposes, not obscene items, citing DCGI FAQ No. 51 exempting non-therapeutic massagers from regulation and pointing to clearances for similar products by giants like Reckitt Benckiser (Durex).
The Delhi High Court dismissed customs’ review petitions on 21 November 2025, fined Assistant Commissioner Jainendra Jain ₹25,000 per case (deducted from salary) for harassment, and upheld a 30 October order for provisional release while directing the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to form a uniform policy via inter-ministerial consultation.
Court Slams ‘Moral Assumptions’ in Enforcement
The Delhi High Court, led by Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain, delivered a sharp rebuke, ruling that massagers for therapeutic or personal care “could not automatically be clubbed with obscene materials like pornographic books or images”.
The bench criticised customs for subjective judgments based on “personal opinions” and “moral assumptions” about potential sex toy use, insisting decisions must follow “national standards” rather than whims.
Justices noted customs concealed key documents like DCGI FAQs and Public Notice 46/2023, which allows post-release EPR filing, and failed to explain why identical goods cleared for larger firms but targeted smaller ones, violating Article 19(1)(g) trade rights. Importers’ counsel Piyushi Garg highlighted this selective enforcement as arbitrary harassment.
Historical Ambiguities Fuel Ongoing Disputes
This row stems from repeated seizures invoking Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for “prurient interest,” amid a 1964 ban lacking updates for modern wellness products. Earlier cases, like Bombay High Court’s 2024 ruling against classifying massagers as sex toys, exposed inconsistent application, with courts urging objective criteria.
The 30 October 2025 order first mandated CBIC consultations across ministries to clarify imports of “body massagers or sex toys,” addressing regulatory gaps in tariff heads for mechano-therapy appliances.
No direct official statements from customs surfaced beyond court filings alleging misdeclaration, but the department’s review pleas were junked for rehashing old arguments.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
This saga exposes a troubling overreach where regulatory intent to curb obscenity morphs into undue hardship for honest businesses, eroding trust in public institutions. While safeguarding societal norms matters, empathy demands policies grounded in evidence, not bias, ensuring small firms aren’t penalised while corporates skate free. The Logical Indian champions transparent dialogue, uniform guidelines, and kindness in enforcement to harmonise commerce with compliance, fostering coexistence.
