HC flags DRI’s overreach in “Pakistani-origin” dry dates case

The case stemmed from a July 2025 import by Make India Impex, a city firm that brought in 56 tonnes of dry dates from Dubai. It was cleared by Customs but recalled by DRI, who suspected the goods were of Pakistan origin

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rebuked the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for forcibly recalling a consignment of dry dates that had already been cleared by Customs, claiming that the goods originated in Pakistan, which is currently facing an import ban.

Bombay High Court at Fort (HT Archives) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)

A division bench of Justices MS Sonak and Advait M Sethna stated that Customs authorities are empowered to act against prohibited imports. However, the DRI officers’ intervention in this case lacked any legal backing and ignored due process under the Customs Act.

The case stemmed from a July 2025 import by Make India Impex, a city firm that brought in 56 tonnes of dry dates from Dubai. The consignment was duly cleared by the Customs at Nhava Sheva Port after a six-day verification process and payment of duties. However, the DRI later claimed to have received specific intelligence suggesting that the shipment was actually of Pakistani origin, a category of goods banned for import under a Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) notification dated May 2, 2025.

Acting on this “intelligence,” DRI officer Sumit Kataria allegedly telephoned the Customs broker and transporters and “requested” that the goods that had already left the port be recalled to the container freight station (CFS). The importer alleged they did this under threat and coercion, and added that the recall caused their supply contract to be cancelled.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Dr Sujay Kantawala argued that the DRI officer had acted outside their jurisdiction after the goods were lawfully cleared. He contended that the agency’s conduct amounted to high-handedness and violated both natural justice and commercial rights.

Additional Solicitor General Anil C Singh defended the DRI, submitting that the recall was prompted by credible intelligence indicating misdeclaration of the country of origin to evade the prohibition on Pakistani goods. Senior advocate Ram Apte, appearing for one DRI officer (identified as Kataria), maintained that his client had acted bona fide and had merely sought to safeguard public revenue.

The court, however, found that the DRI’s action, taken after the Customs cleared the goods, was prima facie illegal and unsupported by any written order or recorded reason to believe, as required under the Customs Act. “It is hard to believe that the goods were returned to the CFS solely based on a request,” the bench observed, adding that “the sixth respondent (the Intelligence Officer) completely ignored the statutory orders of clearance and exercised powers that prima facie did not authorise him to act in this manner.”

The judges stressed that even if the intelligence about the goods being of Pakistani origin was genuine, the DRI could not take the law into its own hands and had to follow proper procedure, such as issuing a show-cause notice or revision under the Customs Act.

The bench also pointed out that Make India Impex had imported two similar consignments of dry dates from the same suppliers within weeks of the disputed shipment, which were cleared without demur, raising questions about inconsistent enforcement of the alleged ban.

The court directed Customs authorities to issue a show-cause notice within four weeks, and decide its action within six weeks thereafter. Failing this, the court ordered that the goods, currently lying at the CFS, must be released either unconditionally or against a redemption fine/bank guarantee.

The bench reiterated that even in cases involving prohibited imports, “the rule of law must prevail.” Allowing perishable goods to rot without timely adjudication “cannot be justified under any pretext,” it said.