Delhi High Court Slams Customs Department for "Harassment," Imposes Costs on Officer for Blocking 'Wellness Massager' Imports

New Delhi – In a strongly-worded order, the Delhi High Court has dismissed review petitions filed by the Customs Department, accusing it of "clearly harassing" an importer by arbitrarily seizing consignments of body massagers. The Court, comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain, imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 per petition, directing the amount to be deducted from the salary of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs involved.

The ruling reaffirms a previous order for the provisional release of goods imported by M/s. Techsync, which had been held up by Customs officials.

Case Background

The dispute originated when the Customs Department seized consignments of body massagers imported by Techsync. On October 30, 2025, the High Court had ordered the provisional release of these goods and directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to formulate a uniform policy for the import of such products, often classified as either wellness devices or sex toys.

Dissatisfied, the Customs Department filed review petitions, seeking to overturn the release order.

Arguments Presented

The Customs Department presented two primary arguments to justify the seizure:

1. DCGI License Required: The imported products required a license from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) as they qualify as medical devices.

2. Missing EPR Certificate: The importer had not provided the mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Registration Certificate required for battery-operated items under the Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022 .

In response, counsel for the petitioner, Techsync, countered that these arguments had already been considered and rejected by the court. They made the following key submissions:

- No DCGI Approval Needed: Citing the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation's own FAQs, they argued that massagers intended for "soothing or general wellness purpose and not for any therapeutic purpose" are not regulated as medical devices.

- EPR Certificate Post-Release: A Public Notice issued by the Commissioner of Customs allows importers to apply for the EPR certificate even after the goods have been released.

- Selective Action: The petitioner highlighted that the Customs Department had previously cleared identical consignments for them and other major companies, including Reckitt Benckiser (Durex brand), thereby demonstrating arbitrary and selective enforcement.

Court’s Scathing Observations

The High Court found the Customs Department's review petitions to be "completely lacking in merit." The bench noted that the department had concealed crucial documents—the DCGI's FAQs and the Public Notice on EPR certificates—from the Court.

The judgment emphasized the inconsistency in the department's actions, stating, "pointed queries were also put... as to whether similar products of other companies, including Reckitt Benckiser, have been stopped or not, to which, clearly, the answer was that they were permitted to import."

The court concluded that the importer was being unfairly targeted, recording in its order:

> "The court is clearly of the view that the Petitioners are being harassed unnecessarily, when clearly the earlier consignments of the Petitioners were cleared without objection and the consignments of various third parties were also cleared."

Final Decision and Implications

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petitions and upheld its original order for the provisional release of the goods within two working days, provided the petitioner files an application for the EPR Certificate.

In a rare and punitive measure, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 in each of the two review petitions, payable by the Customs Department to the petitioner. Critically, the Court directed that this cost "is liable to be deducted from the salary of Mr. Jainendra Jain, Assistant Commissioner of Customs."

This ruling serves as a significant check on the arbitrary exercise of power by customs authorities and underscores the judiciary's willingness to penalize officials for what it deems to be baseless litigation and harassment of legitimate businesses.