In a sharp rebuke to customs enforcement overreach, the Gujarat High Court stepped in to examine whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) could lawfully seize imported fuel cargo by relying on test reports drawn from samples collected in clear violation of statutory safeguards, raising serious questions about procedural integrity, accountability of officers, and the limits of investigative discretion under the Customs Act.
The controversy began when a Mumbai-based importer’s consignment of Distillate Fuel Oil was seized at Hazira port after conflicting laboratory reports emerged from two separate tests conducted on the same cargo. While an initial test by the Central Excise and Customs Laboratory at Vadodara certified the fuel as compliant with prescribed standards, a subsequent report obtained by the DRI from Visakhapatnam found alleged deviations, triggering seizure proceedings.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that both samples forming the foundation of the enforcement action were illegally collected without the presence of the importer, contrary to the mandatory procedure under Section 144 of the Customs Act, rendering the entire action unsustainable.
Examining the record and affidavits placed before it, the Division Bench found the Department’s own admissions deeply damaging. The Court highlighted that the authorities had conceded on affidavit that samples were not drawn “in the presence of the proper officer” or the owner, and yet were selectively relied upon to justify seizure. Calling out this contradiction, the Bench delivered a stinging observation, noting that “the respondents cannot approbate and reprobate” and stressing that Section 144 “mandates that the proper officer has to draw the samples in the presence of the owner.”
Since this statutory requirement was admittedly breached on both occasions, the Court held that the test reports had no legal sanctity and could not form the basis for coercive action. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the seizure memo was quashed, and authorities were directed to release the goods forthwith.
Case Title: M/S Arihant Agro Distillation and Liquid Terminals Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 15106 of 2025
Coram: Justice Pranav Trivedi, Justice A.S. Supehia
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. S. Sunil, Purna Kam Singh, Jaivik Uday Bhatt
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Pradip D. Bhate, Utkarsh R. Sharma
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
