Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Sex Toys/Massagers Not for Therapy or Disease Alleviation: Delhi HC Dismisses Customs’ Review Plea, Holds DCGI Approval Not Required [Read Order]

The Court noted that the Customs had previously released similar consignments, including those of the petitioners without any objection.

Sex Toys- Massagers -  Therapy -  Disease Alleviation - Delhi HC Dismisses Customs - Review Plea - Holds DCGI Approval Not Required
X

The Delhi High Court has once confirmed that body massagers and similar products are not intended for therapeutic or disease-alleviating purposes and thus do not fall within the regulatory scope of the Medical Devices Rules, 2017, the Court accordingly dismissed review petitions filed by the Customs Department which challenged the directions for provisional release of such goods as had been secured by two importers.

The instant review petitions were filed by the Customs Department in two connected matters concerning the seizure of imported massagers and sex-toy type products declared by the petitioner, Techsync and Debanjan Impex, as body-wellness devices during import.

Also Read: Delhi HC RemandsEx-Parte GST Demand as Petitioner Claimed Inability to Access Portal, Imposes₹10K Costs Payable to STBA

By an earlier order dated 30 October 2025, the Delhi High Court had directed provisional release of the imported consignments and instructed the CentralBoard of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to undertake inter-ministerial consultations to frame a uniform import policy for body massagers and sex toys and to not merely adjudge the importability of the goods on the basis of the tests of imagination or ingenuity, as the same would disregard the principles of legitimacy and fairness.

During the hearing, Akshay Amritanshu, Drishti Rawal, Mayur Goyal and Sarthak Srivastava appeared for the Customs and reiterated the Department’s contention that the products were liable to be regulated and therefore could not be released without the required approvals. He also referred to the absence of EPR registration under the Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022, as the products WERE battery-operated.

Piyushi Garg, Ananay Chopra, Ajay Kr Yadav, Chandravijay Sharma, Hardik Saxena and Rajat Yadav appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the grounds raised by Customs such as the absence of DCGI approval or an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Certificate had already been deliberated upon in the earlier order and there existed no basis for review.

Also Read: More Than What Meetsthe Eye”: Delhi HC Dismisses Writ for De-Freezing Bank Account, citesConcealment of DGGI Probe & GST ITC Fraud

The counsel extensively relied on the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (Medical Devices Division) Medical Devices Frequently Asked Questions (CDSCO), Question 51, which specifies that massagers intended for general wellness do not fall under medical-device regulation unless meant for therapeutic treatment or disease alleviation.

It was further submitted that the Petitioners had the option to apply for the EPR certificate even after the release of the goods as per the Public Notice: 46/2023 dated 25th May, 2023 issued by the Commissioner of Customs.

The Delhi High Court Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, observed that the CDSCO FAQs clearly excluded such non-therapeutic massagers from medical-device regulation and noted that the Public Notice No. 46/2023 issued by the Commissioner of Customs expressly permits filing of EPR applications even after release of goods.

The Court further recorded that Customs had previously released similar consignments, including those of the petitioners and other importers such as M/s. Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd., without objection in other cases.

Also Read: Non-Consideration of₹2.01 Cr Earlier Deposit: Delhi HC Allows Appeal Before GSTAT Without FurtherPre-Deposit by Dec 25th

Given the circumstances, the Delhi High Court noted that the review petition is completely devoid of merit and that the Customs are clearly harassing the Petitioners for no reason.

Finding no apparent errors on behalf of the petitioner, the Delhi High Court dismissed the review petitions and imposed costs of ₹25,000 in each petition, directing that the amount be recovered from the salary of Jainendra Jain, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs.

The authorities were further instructed to ensure provisional release of the goods within two days, once the petitioner files the application for procuring the EPR certificate.

The review petitions were accordingly dismissed, with the matter posted for compliance to December 9, 2025.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates


TECHSYNC vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS SIIB ACC IMPORTS AND ORS
CITATION :  2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 2452Case Number :  REVIEW PET. 586/2025 W.P.(C) 3542/2025Date of Judgement :  24th November, 2025Coram :  JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAINCounsel of Appellant :  Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, SSC with Ms. Drishti Rawal, Mr. Mayur Goyal & Mr. Sarthak SrivastavaCounsel Of Respondent :  Ms. Piyushi Garg, Mr. Ananay Chopra, Mr. Ajay Kr Yadav, Mr. Chandravijay Sharma

Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019