The recent observation by the Bombay High Court had sent a hammer blow to the argument of the Customs Department to brand body massagers as adult sex toys. However, the court, constituting Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Kishor Sant, ultimately defied the Customs Department’s directives to seize the cargo of body massagers.
The Commissioner of Customs claimed that these objects were naughty, exploiting them for prohibited sexual purposes, thus coming under the category of prohibited items dealings.
The court thought the vice chairwoman’s assertions were based only on imagination. It did not leave a trace of doubt to note that the decision of the Commissioner of Customs was wrong, and the petition was denied by the previous order that set aside the department’s decision to confiscate the consignments.
The Court stated the excuses provided by the Commissioner were peculiar and far-fetched, noting that no reason could justify a removable-, toy masseur and, thus, not as high standard as an adult toy. It noted that the magistrate often judged based on his views, which in turn often influenced his judgment that he did not classify the goods correctly.
Also, the bench has held that body massagers are traded within the home markets without restrictions and are not considered per查看更多 It also heightened the tax assessment authority’s disadvantage.
The High Court was disappointed that the Commissioner had not acted reasonably regarding the sufficiency of the goods and, consequently, pointed to the role of reasonableness in decisions regarding the clearance of goods.
He stood on the argument that the Acting Commissioner, Accused of public nuisance and imprisoned for the obstruction of common roads and public highways, was based on section 292(2) of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with obscenity. In contrast, the court roundly declined the proponents’ analogy of massagers to the prohibited items of books or drawings, emphasizing that the machines cannot be exactly compared to either of them.
As for the owners of the seized collection, they had petitioned to Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal that its order would be abolished as the whole procedure was wrong and illegal. The Tribunal harshly reprimanded the Commissioner, and for its part, it thought that the categorization by is of body massagers as sex toys for adults was just a term in the imagination.
Mr Commish was advised by a professional who said that pelvic massagers could be used for ulterior motives beyond what was initially intended. Moreover, though the court focused on the other reasonable uses for the instrumentality, making such uses the only legal reason to disallow it would be wrong.
In a remarkable turnaround for the winning bidders, the High Court election was also dismissed by the Commissioner, and the order of the Council was endorsed, thus restoring the tribunal’s legitimacy and the principle of reasonable decision-making.
