The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a company can pursue its writ petition against a customs order that labelled its imported goods as "obscene adult sex toys," even though the Customs Act offers a departmental appeal route. Justice Smita Das De, hearing the matter on 14th September 2026, turned down the Revenue's objection on maintainability and allowed the case to proceed on merits.
Background of the Case
M/S. Pracha Aalloy Private Limited had approached the Court under Article 226, challenging an order dated 22nd July 2026 passed by the fourth respondent. Counsel for the Customs authority argued the petition should be dismissed at the threshold, pointing to Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) subject to a pre-deposit under Section 129E. The Revenue argued the Act is a self-contained code and the company should have used this statutory route instead of coming directly to the High Court.
The Revenue cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, which lists narrow situations where writ jurisdiction can override an alternate remedy, such as a breach of fundamental rights, a violation of natural justice, or an order passed wholly without jurisdiction. They also relied on SEBI vs. Mangalore Stock Exchange, which holds that maintainability must be settled before a case is examined on merits.
The petitioner countered that an alternate remedy is only a rule of discretion, not an absolute bar, relying on the Whirlpool Corporation and Godrej Sara Lee precedents. Their core argument was that the customs order used the phrase "obscene adult sex toys" and cited Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code without pointing to any specific statutory notification banning the goods, and this alone could not make the goods "prohibited" under Section 11 of the Customs Act.
Court's Observation
The Court agreed the case could not be shut out at the threshold. It observed:
"While the availability of an alternative remedy is ordinarily a ground for exercise of restraint under Article 226, it is not an absolute bar."
The Bench noted that whether Section 111(m) was correctly invoked, and whether the goods could be branded prohibited without a clear statutory basis, needed proper examination. It further remarked:
"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 Court also observed that the matter touched on a wider pattern of how trade regulations are applied across custom houses, calling for a considered judicial ruling rather than a routine departmental appeal.
Decision
The Court held the writ petition maintainable, clarifying,
"This Court does not express any opinion on the merits of the matter."
The respondents were directed to file a short affidavit-in-opposition within two weeks, with the petitioner's reply to follow within a week.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on 9th October 2026.
Case Details
- Case Title: M/S. Pracha Aalloy Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.
- Case Number: WPO/370/2026 (with IA GA/1/2026 and GA/2/2026)
- Judge: Justice Smita Das De
- Decision Date: 14th September, 202
