DRI | Meerut Court Denies Bail in Rs. 2.49 Crore Drone Smuggling Case Involving DGFT and BIS Violations

The Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, has rejected the bail application of Salman, proprietor of M/s Devine International, Salman in a high-value customs smuggling case involving the illegal import of drones, branded shoes, motorcycle iron chains, and machinery, with an alleged market value of over Rs. 2.49 crore. The order was passed by Achal Narsaria, Additional Sessions Judge arising out of proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Noida, under Sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 135(1)(i)(A), and 135(1)(i)(C) of the Customs Act, 1962. Acting on specific intelligence, the DRI intercepted an import consignment filed under Bill of Entry No. 5546386 dated 06.11.2025, cleared through ICD Dadri in the name of M/s Devine International (IEC No. IDWPS5386A). The consignment was examined on 18–19 November 2025 in the presence of independent witnesses, the Customs House Agent (CHA), and departmental officers. Although the declared goods included automotive parts, decorative items, vanity boxes, and bicycle parts, physical examination revealed a large quantity of undeclared and prohibited items, including Drones (7,072 units) of various models and specifications, Motorcycle iron chains (11,725 pieces), Branded shoes purportedly of “Nike,” “New Balance,” and “Nitro”, Ordinary powder pressing machine (1 unit), Steel disc brake locks (7,000 pieces), and Empty makeup boxes (144 pieces) The department noted that the drones were imported without a mandatory DGFT import licence, while the shoes lacked BIS certification, in violation of the Quality Control Order dated 30.08.2024. The prosecution relied heavily on DGFT Notification No. 54/2015–2020 dated 09.02.2022, read with Chapter 88 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which classifies drones as “Restricted” items, requiring prior authorisation for import in CBU, SKD, or CKD form. Additionally, motorcycle iron chains were found to be imported in violation of Minimum Import Price (MIP)conditions prescribed under DGFT Notification dated 26.05.2025. The powder pressing machine was allegedly undervalued, and the declared quantity of goods was found to be mis-declared. The seized goods were confiscated under Section 110 of the Customs Act, being liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(m), and 119 of the Act. The applicant contended that Salman was falsely implicated and claimed that his Aadhaar, PAN, and other documents were misused by unknown persons. It was argued that the accused had no prior criminal antecedents, had cooperated with the investigation, and that the goods were overvalued by the department. The defence also emphasized that no drones or prohibited goods were recovered from his physical possession. The Special Public Prosecutor, Lakshay Kumar Singh for the Customs Department pointed out that the accused had voluntarily admitted ownership of M/s Devine International and acknowledged importing the goods through his firm in multiple statements recorded before the DRI and SIIB authorities. The prosecution highlighted that the accused had admitted that the firm was created for trading purposes and that the goods were imported knowingly in violation of import policy restrictions. It was also submitted that the accused attempted to mislead the court by suppressing material facts and making contradictory statements regarding the nature of his business operations. After examining the case record and rival submissions, the court observed that the allegations involved serious economic offences with significant revenue implications. The court noted that the consignment was intercepted based on specific intelligence. Examination was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses. Prohibited and restricted goods were recovered in large quantities. Import violations spanned DGFT, BIS, and Customs law provisions. The value of seized goods exceeded Rs. 2.49 crore The court held that, considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, and the statutory violations involved, it would not be appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. The bail application of Salman s/o Sabbir Khan, resident of Panipat, Haryana, was rejected. The accused remains in judicial custody in connection with the DRI case registered at Noida. Case Details Case Title: Salman Versus UOI Case No.: First Bail Application No. 6794/2025 Date: 14/01/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Kishan Pal Singh Counsel For Respondent: SSP Lakshay Kumar Singh Click Here To Read Order Read More: Unsigned Reassessment Notice Are Void Ab Initio: Bombay HC

DRI | Meerut Court Denies Bail in Rs. 2.49 Crore Drone Smuggling Case Involving DGFT and BIS Violations

Membership Required

Latest articles

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Pay Treatment for Re-employed CGIT Presiding Officers, Rejects 6th Pay Commission Parity Claim

High Courts Can’t Grant Post-Dismissal Arrest Protection in GST Pre-Arrest Bail Matters; S. 69 Arrest Order Must Be Communicated: Supreme Court

Legality of Gold Confiscation Based on Retracted Statement Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Frames 8 Substantial Questions of Law

GST Bank Attachment Can’t Continue Beyond 1 Year: Delhi High Court

More like this

Supreme Court Upholds Separate Pay Treatment for Re-employed CGIT Presiding Officers, Rejects 6th Pay Commission Parity Claim

High Courts Can’t Grant Post-Dismissal Arrest Protection in GST Pre-Arrest Bail Matters; S. 69 Arrest Order Must Be Communicated: Supreme Court

Legality of Gold Confiscation Based on Retracted Statement Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Frames 8 Substantial Questions of Law

About us

Company

Categories