Customs | Mere Location Of DRI Or Central Revenues Control Lab In Delhi Doesn't Confer Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because DRI headquarters or Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) are located in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction upon it to deal with Customs disputes arising in Tamil Nadu.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Renu Bhatnagar made the observation while dealing with the case of Petitioners, situated in Chennai, but challenging seizure memos in Delhi on the ground that its goods were tested at CRCL, Delhi.

The judges observed,

“The testing laboratory is a specialised entity which could have been located anywhere across India. However, the mere fact that the testing took place in Delhi at the laboratory located here, would not amount to constitute the cause of action, insofar as the seizure is concerned.”

Petitioner had imported PVC Coated Fabrics through four separate import orders. The said imports were effected through the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) located in Tamil Nadu and were warehoused in Tamil Nadu.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted an inspection and seized the goods. It is challenging these seizures that the Petitioner approached the High Court.

The Revenue raised a preliminary objection to maintainability of the petition in Delhi, on the ground that the cause of action actually arose in Tamilnadu.

Petitioner on the other hand contended that the concerned DRI is located in Delhi and the laboratory which tested the products is also in Delhi hence, a part of the cause of action arises in Delhi.

Disagreeing, the High Court held, “The mere location of the DRI headquarters in Delhi or the laboratory in Delhi would, in the opinion of this Court, not be sufficient to constitute the cause of action, inasmuch as the subject goods were imported in Chennai, they are being stored in Chennai. Further, the samples were lifted in Chennai and they have been sent to CRCL, New Delhi merely for testing.”

Reliance was placed on Sterling Agro Industries Ltd Vs. UOI and Ors where a Full Bench of the Court held that apart from cause of action, the forum conveniens is also to be seen in writ petitions.

“The impugned seizure memos were served to the Petitioner at Chennai and the Petitioners themselves are located in Tamil Nadu. Thus, the forum convenience in such a case would have to be seen,” the Court said.

The petitions were accordingly dismissed, with liberty to the Petitioners to avail remedies before the appropriate forum.

Appearance: Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Ms. Muskaan Gupta & Ms. Tanya Kumar, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. RaktimGogai CGSC with Mr. Vivek Nagar GP and Mr. Kaushlendra Dutt, Adv. for Respondents

Case title: M/S RR Fashion v. Union Of India And Ors

Case no.: W.P.(C) 19145/2025

Click here to read order