Customs Must Identify Statutory Basis Before Treating Adult Sex Toys as Prohibited Goods: Calcutta HC

Pracha Aalloy Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors. (Calcutta High Court)

Summary: The Calcutta High Court held at the preliminary stage that the writ petition challenging a Customs order was maintainable notwithstanding the statutory appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the statutory pre-deposit contemplated under Section 129E. The petitioner had approached the Court under Article 226 assailing an order dated 22.07.2026. Revenue raised a preliminary objection that the Customs Act constituted a self-contained code providing an efficacious departmental appellate remedy and relied upon Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Mangalore Stock Exchange.

The petitioner, on the other hand, contended that availability of an alternative remedy was a rule of judicial discretion and not an absolute jurisdictional bar, relying upon Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademark and Godrej Sara Lee Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer. The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority had created an unlegislated category of prohibition based upon subjective moral considerations. The High Court observed that the specific question raised was whether the description “obscene adult sex toys” and the alleged applicability of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, without identification of a specific statutory or notification-based prohibition, could by themselves render the goods “prohibited goods” under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962.