HC Declines Jurisdiction Over DRI Seizure of Imported Goods Warehoused in Tamil Nadu:

High Court holds that seizure of imported goods in Tamil Nadu cannot be challenged in Delhi merely because DRI and CRCL are located there
Delhi HC Dismisses DRI Seizure Challenge for Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction

HC Declines Jurisdiction Over DRI Seizure of Imported Goods Warehoused in Tamil Nadu
The petitioners, M/s RR Fashion, M/s Yashi Fashion and M/s SS Impex, imported PVC coated fabrics from a Chinese supplier through the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Tamil Nadu. The goods were warehoused in Tamil Nadu. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Delhi conducted inspections, lifted samples in Chennai, and issued multiple seizure memos during May 2025. The seized samples were sent to CRCL, New Delhi for testing.
Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Delhi High Court challenging the seizure memos as well as the CRCL test reports, contending that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi since the DRI headquarters and the testing laboratory were located there.
Main Issue: Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions challenging seizure memos issued by DRI when the imports, storage, sampling and service of seizure memos took place in Tamil Nadu, merely because the DRI office and testing laboratory were located in Delhi.
HC's Decision: The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Court ruled that mere location of the DRI headquarters or the CRCL laboratory in Delhi does not constitute a sufficient cause of action. The imports were effected in Chennai, the goods were warehoused in Tamil Nadu, samples were lifted there, and the seizure memos were served upon petitioners located in Tamil Nadu.
The Court applied the doctrine of forum conveniens as laid down by the Full Bench in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. andm held that the appropriate forum was the jurisdictional High Court in Tamil Nadu. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to approach the appropriate High Court or forum in accordance with law.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2166My Recent Articles
- ITAT Condones 648-Day Delay After Assessee Lost Family During COVID, Restores AppealPremium
- ITAT Quashes Rs 2 Crore Penalty as Time-Barred; Limitation Starts from AO’s Reference, Not Show-Cause NoticePremium
- ITAT Remands Appeal After Finding NFAC Ignored 89 Pages of Evidence on Cash Deposits and Flat Improvement CostPremium
- ITAT Grants Fresh Opportunity in Rs 2.63 Crore Foreign Bank Credit Addition CasePremium
- ITAT Deletes Section 68 Addition on Explained Demonetisation Cash DepositsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








