The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition by the Customs Department, which had challenged an earlier judgment allowing the release of body massagers imported by Techsync, an MSME. The court also instructed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to conduct inter-ministerial consultations and file a uniform policy by 9th of December. “The Customs Department is clearly harassing the petitioners for no reason,” said the division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain. Lawyers told, ThePrint the consignments remained unreleased as of Wednesday evening.
On 24 November, the high court dismissed the review petition, concluding “there was no ground to review” its earlier order. During proceedings, when asked whether consignments from larger companies such as Reckitt Benckiser had been stopped, customs replied in the negative. Advocate said the judges remarked that the officers were treating the matter as an “ego issue.”
The dispute began in January when customs officials seized two Techsync consignments, classifying them as sex toys under a 1964 notification of the Customs Act and Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, alleging the devices appealed to the “prurient interest” and were “battery-operated vibrating devices bearing no therapeutic or medical utility.”
Techsync argued the goods were lawfully imported under the tariff head for “Mechano-Therapy Appliances; Massage Apparatus” and accused customs of acting on “moral assumptions.”
Customs further claimed Techsync required registration and a No-objection certificate (NOC) from the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, arguing the devices were “in reality sex toys intended for sexual pleasure.” The department also cited the need for ‘Extended Producer Responsibility’ registration under the Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022, due to the presence of rechargeable batteries. Techsync countered by stating the petition was “directly contradictory” to the earlier order and accused the department of deliberate delay.
In its 30 October judgment, the high court ruled that massage devices designed for therapeutic or personal care use “could not automatically be clubbed with obscene materials like pornographic books or images.” The bench said, “By subjecting personal opinions as to the use of the imported products i.e., ‘body massagers’, and declaring the same as obscene products on the mere possibility of the same being used as sex toys, the (customs) commissioner had acted in violation of the law.” The court clarified such decisions “cannot be taken on subjective opinion but on national standards.”
Techsync highlighted that comparable products had been cleared for larger firms, including Reckitt Benckiser India, and cited 2024 CDSCO FAQs—”If a massager is intended for soothing or general wellness purpose and not for any therapeutic purposes, then it does not come under the regulation.” The company also pointed to exemptions under the Battery and E-Waste Management Rules for micro enterprises.
Advocates for Techsync, described the judgment as a “landmark victory for MSMEs.” They said, “Lawful trade activity cannot be stigmatised or obstructed by discretionary or moralistic enforcement… For the millions of MSME entrepreneurs who constitute the backbone of the Indian economy, this case stands as a judicial affirmation that small enterprises, too, are entitled to big justice.” They also called for “policy modernisation.”
The court referenced a 2024 Bombay High Court ruling criticising subjective obscenity determinations and applied the ‘ejusdem generis’ principle, stating the 1964 notification applies only to articles similar to those listed. The bench noted a prior inconsistent application by customs and observed similar consignments had been cleared for other companies, including Huha Care Pvt Ltd.
