Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1311 - AT - CustomsAbsolute Confiscation of imported goods - body massager - consideration of the goods as ‘adult sex toy’ - direction for destroying the seized goods - prohibition on import by notification no. 1/1964-Cus dated 18th January 1964 - imposition of penalties of varying amounts under section 112 and section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The law frowns, doubtlessly, on the ‘obscene’ as abundantly clear from section 292 of Indian Penal Code. It is also the law that has stipulated ‘obscenity’ by deeming provision and has, besides, carved out exceptions in 1925 to give effect to concerns articulated in the International Convention for the Suppression of or Traffic in Obscene Publications under the auspices of the League of Nations. That, however, is the law for domestic enforcement by penalizing offenders engaged in sale of obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation, figure or article within the country or across the border in either direction; the criminalizing intent of the law must find reflection in action against book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation, figure or article. To limit the remit of notification no. 1/64Cus (NT) dated 18th January 1964 to executive action on imports upon determination of ‘obscene’ in accordance with the laws penalizing ‘obscenity’. The sale of ‘body massagers’ within the national boundaries have not been subject to prohibition and in discarding the submission to that effect, the adjudicating authority did not appear to have found cause to pause for ascertainment of his authority to determine goods as ‘obscene’ solely in international transactions while no such restriction is placed on domestic transactions of the same goods. The appellant had made a specific plea of electronic platforms making allowance for sale of these very goods to domestic consumers - To approve of the detriment brought to bear on the impugned goods would amount to subordinating tariff, and trade prohibition, policy of the Central Government to non-tariff interdiction by subordinate officialdom. The adjudicating authority has placed erroneous construction on the words of the statute to draw powers that traverse the moral domain and private concern of persons. To begin with, customs law is enacted to give effect to empowering officials in collection of duties envisaged in Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the inherent ‘commodity policing’ at the frontiers, or point of entry, convenienced the legislature to confer power of withholding clearance of prohibited goods; prohibition has to be unambiguously spelt out in the law and, in ‘obscenity’ law, use is not likely to be a criteria for proscribing and, more so, in circumstances admitting more than one singular and unique use - The apprehension of ‘misuse’ suggested by shape and features as justification to interdict ‘body massagers’ that, unlike ‘adult sex toys’, are amenable to classification in First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and which the show cause notice does not contest, evokes nightmares of an over-intrusive customs administration which may find potential for ‘forbidden delights’ in several commonplace articles of commerce. After all, if shape and features were to be the characteristic of ‘obscenity’, we would end up living in world bereft of material comforts afforded by inventive genius for most goods in the tariff would be vulnerable to absolute confiscation. In any case, pleasure, and indulgence thereof, which may be anathema to those initiated into life, or term, of celibacy, is of no concern to a customs law and detriment to crossborder transactions on assumption of that concern veers dangerously close to pursuit of moral crusade. It is quite possible the impugned goods may, as suggested by two of the ‘experts’ on record, well find use as ‘surrogate sex’ partner or as ‘sex aid' but then, what would not; we do not know and, as it appears, neither does the adjudicating authority for he preferred to refer to the unmentionable as ‘adult sex toy’ for ‘stimulation and erotic pleasure’ which, to us, appears to be delightfully vague with overtones of decadence stimulated more by moral, than legal, stipulation. Adults may toy with people and may play with toys but whether toys – symbolic of the joy of innocent childhood – should go hand in hand with the context – even if not under public gaze - that the adjudicating authority adumbrates as ‘obscene’ may not be without controversy. The finding of the adjudicating authority that the impugned goods merit confiscation is, thus, too wide off the mark, as far as the law invoked therein is concerned, on several counts - Whether that be casuistry or not, it can safely be said that this distinguishment of this human function as an intensely private activity that is not even to be hinted at in polite, cultured society vests public performance, or even representation of it, as ‘obscene’, at least for sexual content. It is not for agents of the State to go beyond ‘community standards’ of morality to determine ‘obscenity’ and ‘community standards’ – either by cavil of representative of community or in notifications prohibiting import of the impugned goods - have been not accorded due weightage in the impugned order. The deeming definition of ‘obscene’, in so far as objects are concerned, alludes to reading, seeing and hearing as the triggers. There is nothing on record, too, to warrant any surmise that the presentation of ‘body massagers’ in the market place would direct thinking of ‘susceptible minds’ or of those ‘vulnerable to improper suggestions’ to conjugal relations that profane nature or calculated to cause offence in others - The impugned proceedings set out to do that which the law did not intend and attempted to justify that adventure without reference to any settled law. That the impugned notification lacked definition of ‘obscene’ was not unknown to the adjudicating authority is not in doubt as seen from the attempt to fill that gap by reference to deeming provision in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appeal of the Commissioner of Customs is dismissed as infructuous.
|