In a significant development involving cross-border trade and import regulation, the Customs Court in Uran has granted bail to Accused, Company in Dubai, in connection with an investigation into the alleged illicit import of Dry Dates originating from Pakistan.
The application for bail was filed by Accused, a UAE resident. He is primarily engaged in international trade through his company, which operates from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Accused was arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) upon his arrival at Goa airport on August 21, 2025, where he was taken into custody and later produced before the Magistrate, receiving a Transit Remand.
Dr Sujay Kantawala on behalf of the Applicant stated that his company had procured Dry Dates locally in Dubai and possessed all required documents such as Country of Origin and Phytosanitary Certificates issued by UAE authorities. He maintained that Dry Dates were neither banned nor prohibited for export from Dubai and that his role as proprietor was largely managerial, without involvement in daily operations.
However, the DRI countered by alleging that Accused’s firm was part of a wider scheme to circumvent restrictions on importing Pakistani-origin Dry Dates into India. Intelligence suggested that 24 containers of Dry Dates, imported under Bills of Entry dated July 19 and July 28, 2025, were falsely declared as UAE-origin goods. The actual origin, according to DRI, was Pakistan, with shipments routed through Jebel Ali, UAE, to obscure the true source.
Investigations revealed that Company, lacking an import-export license, acted as an intermediary by sourcing Dry Dates from various suppliers, including Pakistan, and exporting them. Payments between the parties were often transferred through indirect means, raising suspicion of deliberate concealment.
Despite these contentions, the Court observed critical gaps in the prosecution’s case. Notably, the DRI failed to provide documentary evidence indicating that the disputed Dry Dates indeed originated from Pakistan or that Accused had knowledge of such facts. Furthermore, the fact that Accused’s brother operated another firm involved in imports did not, in itself, implicate Accused.
The Court underscored that no notice was issued to the Accused prior to his arrest, and the investigation appeared to rest on assumptions rather than concrete proof. The DRI’s demand for custodial interrogation seemed unfounded, especially as no new evidence emerged during the brief custody period.
Consequently, the Court granted bail on the condition that the Accused would cooperate fully with the investigation, abstain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, report to the DRI office in Nhava Sheva monthly, and notify the authorities of any international travel from UAE in advance.
Accused was ordered to furnish a Personal Recognizance bond of ₹1,00,000 along with one or two Indian residents as sureties of like amount.
Case Details
Counsel For Petitioner: Dr Sujay Kantawala
Counsel For Respondent: DRI
Read More: Customs Superintendent Granted Bail in Alleged Misdeclaration Case at Nhava Sheva CFS
