Calcutta High Court To Examine If Customs Can Treat 'Obscene Adult Sex Toys' As Prohibited Goods

The Calcutta High Court is set to examine whether goods described as “obscene adult sex toys” can be treated as “prohibited goods” under the Customs Act without identifying a specific statutory or notification-based prohibition.

Justice Smita Das De is hearing a petition filed by Pracha Aalloy Private Limited against a July 22, 2026, Customs order. The key question is whether describing the goods as “obscene adult sex toys” and invoking Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can, by themselves, make them prohibited goods under Section 11 of the Customs Act.

Section 11 of the Customs Act provides for prohibiting the import or export of goods. The court noted that the precise statutory basis for treating the goods as prohibited requires consideration. It also said the basis for invoking Section 111(m) of the Act would have to be examined.

The petitioner alleged that the adjudicating authority had created an “unlegislated category of prohibition” based on “subjective moral biases”.

Explaining why it would examine the challenge, the court observed:

“The preliminary objection of the Revenue must fail, since it is no longer res integra, that when a statutory authority acts completely outside the boundaries of objective law and enters the realm of subjective morality thereby severely affecting a citizen's fundamental right to trade, the High Court will not shut its doors. The present case involves systematic misrepresentation of trade regulations across various custom houses, which necessitates and authoritative judicial pronouncements rather than a routine departmental appeal.”

The customs authorities had argued that the company should first pursue the statutory appeal available under the Customs Act instead of approaching the High Court.

The petitioner countered that the existence of an alternative remedy does not completely bar the High Court from exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court rejected the objection and held that the writ petition was maintainable. It clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute.

The matter will be heard on October 9, 2026.

For Petitioner: Advocate Gunjan Bahety, Advocate Dhiraj Tiwari and Advocate Khushal Mittal

For Customs Authorities: Advocate Kaushik Dey and Advocate Tapan Bhanja

For Union of India: Advocate Amit Sharma and Advocate Abhishek Kr. Agrahari