DRI/CBIC Headquarters In Delhi Cannot Confer Jurisdiction Over Goods Detained In UP: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the location of the headquarters of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) or the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) in Delhi does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain a challenge against detention of goods at an Inland Container Depot (ICD) in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh.

The Division Bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Shail Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Pradeep Industries and others, holding that the entire cause of action had arisen at ICD Dadri, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Noida.

Petitioners had challenged seizure memos dated May 23, June 4 and July 3, 2025, concerning imported designer and decorative stainless-steel coils. They also sought release/provisional release of the goods and a direction to the Union Government and CBIC not to rely upon a certificate issued by a Chartered Engineer for determining the classification of the goods.

The goods had been seized at ICD Dadri on the ground that they were not classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 73269060, as claimed by Petitioners, and that Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification under IS 6911 was required under the Steel Control Order issued by the Union Steel Ministry.

Petitioners argued that the CBIC exercises all-India jurisdiction and that the ICD at Dadri is a regional unit of the DRI, whose headquarters is located in Delhi.

The Court however rejected the argument, noting that the petition specifically sought to challenge the detention of goods at ICD Dadri and obtain their release, while the proceedings were pending before the Commissioner of Customs, Noida. The Court therefore held that the entire cause of action arose at Dadri, which was outside its territorial jurisdiction.

The Court further held that Petitioners' contentions regarding alleged violation of CBIC policy, reliance on the Chartered Engineer's certificate and clearance of similar goods by other ICDs could not confer jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court.

These issues, the Court said, were to be considered by the Commissioner of Customs, Noida, and not by the DRI headquarters in Delhi or the CBIC.

The Court also examined the Full Bench ruling in Sterling Agro Industries, which had held that even where a minuscule part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of a High Court, a writ petition may be maintainable, subject to the doctrine of forum conveniens.

However, the Court emphasised that the doctrine requires consideration of the nature of the cause of action and the factual matrix of each case.

Applying those principles, the Court heldm “The authority detaining the goods is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Not even a minuscule part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court...”

The Court also relied upon its earlier decision in M/s Meever India Private Limited v. Union of India, where it had held that the mere fact that a circular was issued from Delhi did not confer jurisdiction when the substantive dispute concerned business activities and proceedings outside Delhi.

As such, the Court dismissed the petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

For Petitioners: Advocates Govind Krishna Dixit, Anasua Chakravarti & Sanjeevani Dixit.

For Respondents: Anurag Ojha, SSC with Advocates Dipak Raj, Aditya Chaudhary, Garima Kumar, Deep Raj, Advs. for R-2 to 4 & 6. Dr. Subhash C Gupta, Sr. Adv. for R-8. Senior Advocate Pragyan Pradip Sharma,with Advocates Rajesh Sharma, Nikhil Sharma, Piyush Tiwari, Ananya Mahajan, Advs. for R-9 Suruchi Mittal, SPC for UOI. Nitinjya Chaudhry, CGSC with Rahul Mourya