The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has seized 19,800 firecrackers, weighing approximately 10,000 kg and valued at about ₹3 crore, from an import container at Nhava Sheva Port. According to a Ministry of Finance release issued on September 23, 2026, the consignment had been declared as bottles and wallpaper. 

Buy Now: 100+ Judgements On Customs Classification

Declared goods occupied only the front of the container

Acting on intelligence that the consignment could contain firecrackers, DRI officers intercepted the container and examined its contents. They found the declared goods in the first three rows. Most of the space behind those rows was filled with firecrackers identified in the release as “288 Gatling.”

The arrangement appears to have used the bottles and wallpaper as cover cargo. Officers seized both the firecrackers and the declared goods under the Customs Act, 1962. 

Why import authorisation matters

Firecrackers are classified as a restricted import under India’s Foreign Trade Policy. The DRI release states that their import requires valid authorisation from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), along with the requisite licence from the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) under the Explosives Rules, 2008. A declaration describing a consignment as ordinary merchandise does not remove those requirements. 

The quantity recovered makes the alleged misdeclaration substantial: the firecrackers accounted for nearly the entire container, while the goods listed in the import declaration occupied only its front rows. The seizure will now be examined through the customs investigation and adjudication process.

One person arrested; investigation continues

DRI said it has arrested a person it described as a key member of the group allegedly arranging the consignment’s clandestine clearance. The arrest was made under the Customs Act, 1962. The agency has not disclosed the person’s identity or provided further details about the importer, shipment origin or other suspected participants in its release. The allegations remain subject to investigation and legal proceedings. 

Read More: SEZ Unit Can’t Be Denied GST ITC Refund Solely Because It Is Not Supplier: Madras High Court