THE comptroller of the Customs and Excise Division has been given two months to create and publish clear rules on how adult sex toys are imported.
The High Court said the rules must explain that these items are not automatically considered indecent and on those that fall within the definition of “indecent” under the Customs Act, and should guide both customs officers and the public.
The order was made by Justice Westmin James in a ruling on April 9.
He held the comptroller acted unlawfully in seizing adult sex toys imported by Ronna Zamora Rodriguez. He also declared the comptroller acted irrationally by the continued failure to provide policy guidance.
James held that the seizure and detention of Rodriguez’s imported goods — including multiple consignments of sex toys between April and June 2023 — was “irrational,” “unlawful,” and a breach of the rule of law.
Although the seized items were eventually returned, the judge said the matter remained unresolved and required judicial determination, particularly the failure of the comptroller to publish a clear policy under Section 45(1)(L) of the Customs Act.
“There is significant value in the court issuing declaratory relief, as the interpretation of section 45(1)(L) carries ongoing legal significance and warrants judicial determination. I am of the belief that there is good reason why the court should still determine the case as it is in the public interest to do so,” he noted.
The ruling stemmed from Rodriguez’s judicial review claim, filed after the CED repeatedly classified her goods as “obscene” or “indecent” without providing specific reasoning or legal basis. Notices of seizure were issued for items such as dildos and other adult toys.
Despite earlier court decisions which found similar customs policies unconstitutional, Rodriguez’s goods were detained for months, with only vague references to their nature.
James rejected the State’s argument that the matter had become academic upon returning the items.
“The absence of such guidelines has resulted in the arbitrary and inconsistent application of the law,” James wrote in the judgment.
“The current state of affairs—where importers have no way of knowing which sex toys will be seized and which will not—is untenable.
“This uncertainty has led to an excessive burden on judicial resources, financial costs for importers, and unnecessary expenditure by the State in damages and costs. Allowing such ambiguity to persist in this court’s mind is irrational and constitutes a violation of an importer’s right to the protection of the law,” James said.
He also held that the initial decision to seize the items “was not a decision that a reasonable decision-maker would have reached.”
James continued, “If goods of the kind in question may lawfully be
manufactured and sold in Trinidad and Tobago, they cannot reasonably be considered indecent solely for the purpose of importation.
“There is no evidence before the court that such goods, once imported, breach any local laws. Further, there is no evidence that similar goods have been seized from retail outlets.
Referring to the other cases before Justices Ricky Rahim and Avason Quinlan-Williams, the judge noted that the absence of guidelines had resulted in the arbitrary and inconsistent application of the law.
“The current state of affairs—where importers have no way of knowing which sex toys will be seized and which will not—is untenable,” the judge said in his judgment.
He said his order for the State to provide clear guidance was in the interest of legal certainty, transparency and protection of the rule of law,
Rodriguez was represented by attorneys Kiel Taklalsingh, Stefan Ramkissoon and Naveen Maraj. Stefan Jaikaran and Kristyn Lewis represented the State.
