High Court Directs Customs to Issue a Show Cause Notice or Release Seized Dry Dates Imported from UAE

The petitioner, being a proprietary company engaged in importing dry dates, submitted Bill of Entry No. 3375923 dated 19 July 2025 for 56 tonnes of dry dates. After examination, the Customs Authorities, on 24 July 2025 at 19:23 hours, issued an Out-of-Charge order under Section 47 of the Customs Act after getting release clearances from the Ministry of Agriculture and FSSAI. The entire amount of Rs. 6,30,361.70 customs duty was paid, and a gate pass was issued, pursuant to which the containers were cleared out of customs custody during the same night. Thus, the petition, after the goods had left the CFS premises, officers of the DRI, acting through a Senior Intelligence Officer, telephonically contacted the Customs Broker and Transporters and compelled them to bring the cleared containers back to the CFS under threat of coercive action.

The petitioner alleged that the goods were thus brought back under pressure on 25 July 2025 even though lawful custody had already passed to the importer. The DRI officer validated his actions by stating that he had obtained credible intelligence that the dry dates were Pakistani in origin and were routed through Dubai (UAE) in order to circumvent the DGFT Notification No. 06/2025-26 dated 2 May 2025 banning imports from Pakistan. He stated that the containers were brought back “for safekeeping and further action” under Sections 47 and 106 of the Customs Act, though no show-cause notice or written order was issued and no contemporaneous record of “reason to believe” was produced.

Issue Before the Court
Whether the officers of the DRI were legally justified in demanding back goods already cleared for home consumption under Section 47 of the Customs Act on the basis of unchecked intelligence without noting reasons or issuing a show-cause notice, and whether the act met the demands of law and natural justice.

Court’s Decision: The M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., bench held that the sixth respondent’s act of bringing the goods back after statutory clearance was not based on law. Since a proper officer had already cleared the goods under Section 47 upon payment of duty and requisite verification, their custody was transferred to the importer, and any subsequent interference had to be in accordance with legal procedures like revision or service of a notice under Section 124. The Court observed that no written order or file note recorded the alleged “reason to believe” and that Sections 47 and 106 could not justify the telephonic recall of cleared goods.

Given the perishable nature of dry dates and balancing the revenue and petitioner’s interests, the Court instructed the Customs Authorities to issue a notice of show cause within four weeks and dispose of it within six weeks of the reply by the petitioner. All adverse materials must be furnished with the notice. If no notice is issued or adjudicated within this period, the authorities must release the detained goods against payment of a tentative redemption fine or a bank guarantee securing that amount. The Court clarified that the question whether the goods were of Pakistani origin remained open for decision by the proper officer following due process. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below