Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesSerious Allegations Against DRI Officer; Bombay High Court Takes Cognisance

Serious Allegations Against DRI Officer; Bombay High Court Takes Cognisance

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Bombay High Court has directed the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to file a detailed affidavit addressing serious allegations made by trading firm Make India Impex against one of its officers, Mr. Sumit Kataria. 

The bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna  observed that prima facie, the allegations raised in the complaint appeared to be serious and required a response on record.

The Petitioner, a seasoned importer, impugned the illegal detention of its customs-cleared consignment of dry dates by DRI officials despite full duty payment, final assessment, and issuance of Out-of-Charge. The goods, being perishable, were forcefully brought back post-clearance, causing cancellation of domestic sales and financial losses. The Petitioner’s representations remain unanswered while coercive actions, including summons and searches, continue. A subsequent identical consignment from the same supplier was cleared without issue, highlighting arbitrary conduct. 

The Petitioner sought urgent relief from the Court, including immediate release of goods, waiver of demurrage, and compensation for loss caused by the Respondents’ actions.

The petitioner, Make India Impex, represented by senior advocate Dr. Sujay Kantawala, alleged misconduct on the part of Kataria and other officials. A formal complaint dated July 26, 2025, had already been submitted to the Additional Director General of DRI.

While the case initially did not implead Kataria in his personal capacity, the bench granted leave for his inclusion as a respondent. The Court ordered that notice be issued to him, returnable on September 22, 2025.

Significantly, the Court directed the Additional Director General of DRI (Respondent No. 2) to file an affidavit on both the merits of the case and specifically on the allegations against Kataria and other officers, by September 19, 2025, without seeking any extension of time. Kataria has also been permitted to file his own affidavit within the same timeline.

The petitioner has been instructed to serve a copy of the writ petition to Kataria immediately, ensuring he has adequate opportunity to respond. Additionally, counsels representing the Union of India and other respondents were directed to communicate the order to both the DRI and Kataria.

The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on September 22, 2025.

Case Details

Case Title: Make India Impex : Petitioner Versus Union of India and ors. 

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 11099 Of 2025

Date: 11 September 2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: Dr Sujay Kantawala

Counsel For Respondent: Jitendra B Mishra 

Read More: Ease of Doing Business Can’t Be Just on Paper: Bombay HC Frowns On Customs Dept. for Resisting Re-Testing Of Roasted Cashew 

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Supplier’s Wrong Shipment Can’t Be Treated as Importer’s Customs Misdeclaration: CESTAT

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

Quarterly Export Refund Limitation Runs From End of Quarter in Which FIRC Is Received: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has held that the...

DGFT’s Export Obligation Discharge Certificate Bars Customs Demand Over EPCG Car Import: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside customs...

GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred Where Delay Occurred Beyond Taxpayer’s Control: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the GST Appellate Authority to entertain an appeal...

More like this

Supplier’s Wrong Shipment Can’t Be Treated as Importer’s Customs Misdeclaration: CESTAT

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

Quarterly Export Refund Limitation Runs From End of Quarter in Which FIRC Is Received: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has held that the...

DGFT’s Export Obligation Discharge Certificate Bars Customs Demand Over EPCG Car Import: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside customs...