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 TaxesIllegal Pakistani-Origin Dry Dates Import: Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC’s Deadline for...

Illegal Pakistani-Origin Dry Dates Import: Supreme Court Stays Bombay HC’s Deadline for DRI Probe 

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Supreme Court of India has put on hold the stringent timeline set by the Bombay High Court for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai, to conclude its investigation into the alleged illegal import of dry dates originating from Pakistan. 

The apex court has granted the central agency full liberty to carry on its probe without any procedural constraints.

The case stems from an ongoing investigation into the suspected import of prohibited goods under Indian trade laws. The DRI claims the consignment of dry dates, imported by Make India Impex, was routed through Dubai to conceal its true origin—Pakistan, a country from which import of certain agricultural products is restricted.

The controversy began when Make India Impex approached the Bombay High Court, seeking the release of approximately 56 tonnes of dry dates seized by DRI officials. The importer contended that all legal formalities had been duly fulfilled — including payment of Rs. 6.3 lakh in customs duty, and obtaining requisite approvals from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). Despite these clearances and the initial release of goods by Customs authorities, the DRI seized the consignment alleging that it was of Pakistani origin, disguised as produce from Dubai.

In its order, the Bombay High Court had imposed a strict timeline on the DRI, directing the agency to issue a show-cause notice within four weeks and to complete adjudication within six weeks thereafter. The Court had further directed that if the DRI failed to meet these deadlines, the seized goods—currently lying at a Container Freight Station (CFS)—should be released, either unconditionally or upon the importer furnishing a redemption fine or bank guarantee.

DRI’s Appeal to the Supreme Court

The DRI challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court, asserting that the investigation was part of a larger transnational smuggling network involving multiple layers of document forgery, trans-shipment manipulation, and origin concealment. The agency argued that the rigid timeline prescribed by the Bombay High Court could undermine the depth and efficacy of the probe and was inconsistent with the procedural framework under the Customs Act, 1962.

The DRI also emphasized that the matter carried serious national security implications, given the involvement of foreign entities and the deliberate misrepresentation of the source country.

While admitting the DRI’s appeal, the Supreme Court observed that investigations of such complex and cross-border nature cannot be constrained by inflexible deadlines. The Court noted that the enforcement agency must be given sufficient time and procedural latitude to uncover the full extent of the alleged smuggling operation.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the Bombay High Court’s order, thereby allowing the DRI and its investigating officers to continue their probe unhindered in accordance with the statutory process.

Case Details

Case Title: Union Of India & Ors. Versus Make India Impex

Case No.: SLP (C) 31205/2025

Date:  31-10-2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: N. Venkataraman, A.S.G.

Counsel For Respondent: Azmat Amanullah, Adv./AOR

Read More: Second Hand Digital Machines Import Doesn’t Require Environment Ministry Approval: Madras High Court Directs Provisional Release

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

FREEDOM SUPREME – 2026 INSC 1195 – SRI SUJIT DAS AND ORS. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

This Article pertaining to FREEDOM SUPREME – 2026 INSC 1195 - SRI SUJIT DAS...

GST Notice Despite Advance Ruling: Gujarat High Court Restrains Final Order Without Its Permission

The Gujarat High Court has granted ad-interim protection to a company challenging proceedings under...

GST Demand Based On Return Scrutiny Requires Prior ASMT-10 Notice: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has set aside a GST demand proceeding involving alleged under-declaration...

Govt. Funding Doesn’t Establish Eligibility For 12% GST On Spinning Mill Construction: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Pune Bench, has upheld 18% GST...

More like this

FREEDOM SUPREME – 2026 INSC 1195 – SRI SUJIT DAS AND ORS. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

This Article pertaining to FREEDOM SUPREME – 2026 INSC 1195 - SRI SUJIT DAS...

GST Notice Despite Advance Ruling: Gujarat High Court Restrains Final Order Without Its Permission

The Gujarat High Court has granted ad-interim protection to a company challenging proceedings under...

GST Demand Based On Return Scrutiny Requires Prior ASMT-10 Notice: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has set aside a GST demand proceeding involving alleged under-declaration...