Bombay High Court slams DRI officer for high-handed recall of cleared dry dates consignment

The Bombay High Court has come down closely on a senior officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for performing with out authorized authority in recalling a consignment of dry dates that had already been cleared by Customs. In a judgment delivered on October 8, 2025, a Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna held that the officer’s actions have been “prima facie high-handed” and “not backed by regulation.” 

Sumit Kataria, a Senior Intelligence Officer with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), was named because the sixth respondent in his private capability, following allegations that he acted arbitrarily and with out authorized authority in recalling a consignment of cleared items. 

The case arose from a petition filed by Make India Impex, a Mumbai-based importer, whose consignment of 56 tonnes of dry dates was cleared by the Customs Department on July 24, 2025, after due verification and fee of customs responsibility amounting to ₹6.3 lakh. The items have been launched from the J.M. Baxi Container Freight Station (CFS) in Nhava Sheva and transported to a warehouse in Navi Mumbai. 

However, later that night, Mr. Kataria allegedly started calling the customs dealer and transporter, demanding that the products be introduced again to the CFS. The petitioner claimed that the products have been forcibly returned below menace of extreme motion, regardless of having been lawfully cleared. The containers have since remained detained on the CFS. 

The DRI officer justified his actions by citing intelligence acquired late on July 24, suggesting that the dry dates originated from Karachi, Pakistan, and have been routed via Dubai to avoid a DGFT notification dated May 2, 2025, which prohibits imports from Pakistan. Mr. Kataria claimed he acted in good religion and denied utilizing coercion, stating that he merely “requested” the return of the products. 

The Court, nevertheless, discovered this clarification unconvincing. “At least prima facie, it’s laborious to consider that the products have been returned to the CFS solely based mostly on a ‘request’ of the sixth Respondent,” the Bench noticed. It famous that the products had been below customs scrutiny for practically every week earlier than being cleared, and that the correct officer had already verified the nation of origin and issued the Out of Charge order. 

“The sixth Respondent, who’s a senior intelligence officer, by fully ignoring the statutory order below Section 47 of the Customs Act, and with out compliance with any authorized provisions, has just about pressured the Petitioner or moderately the Customs Brokers and the Transporters, to deliver again such items,” the Court held. 

The Bench emphasised that even when the officer had acquired intelligence, there have been authorized procedures out there to behave upon it, together with issuing a show-cause discover below Section 124 of the Customs Act. “The ends can not all the time justify the means,” the Court stated, including, “Any alleged absence of malafides is not any substitute for performing opposite to the regulation or authorized procedures.” 

The Court additionally rejected the DRI’s reliance on Section 106 of the Customs Act, which permits officers to cease and search conveyances, stating that the supply didn’t apply to items already cleared by Customs. 

The Court directed the Customs authorities to challenge a show-cause discover inside 4 weeks and eliminate it inside six weeks of receiving the petitioner’s response. If the timeline will not be met, the authorities should launch the products upon fee of a redemption superb or submission of a financial institution assure, the courtroom stated.  

The Court additionally famous that inside two weeks of the disputed consignment, the identical importer had efficiently cleared two comparable consignments of dry dates from the identical provider and route, with none objection from the authorities.  

“The rule of regulation requires that statutory functionaries act in accordance with the regulation and inside the bounds positioned upon the train of their energy by the regulation.,” the Bench famous.