MUMBAI, Oct. 9 -- The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rebuked the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for forcibly recalling a consignment of dry dates that had already been cleared by Customs, claiming that the goods originated in Pakistan, which is currently facing an import ban. A division bench of Justices MS Sonak and Advait M Sethna stated that Customs authorities are empowered to act against prohibited imports. However, the DRI officers' intervention in this case lacked any legal backing and ignored due process under the Customs Act. The case stemmed from a July 2025 import by Make India Impex, a city firm that brought in 56 tonnes of dry dates from Dubai. The consignment was duly cleared by the Customs at Nhava Sheva Port after a six-day verification process and payment of duties. However, the DRI later claimed to have received specific intelligence suggesting that the shipment was actually of Pakistani origin, a category of goods banned for import under a Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) notification dated May 2, 2025. Acting on this "intelligence," DRI officer Sumit Kataria allegedly telephoned the Customs broker and transporters and "requested" that the goods that had already left the port be recalled to the container freight station (CFS). The importer alleged they did this under threat and coercion, and added that the recall caused their supply contract to be cancelled. Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Dr Sujay Kantawala argued that the DRI officer had acted outside their jurisdiction after the goods were lawfully cleared. He contended that the agency's conduct amounted to high-handedness and violated both natural justice and commercial rights. Additional solicitor general Anil C Singh defended the DRI, submitting that the recall was prompted by credible intelligence indicating misdeclaration of the country of origin. Adv Ram Apte, appearing for DRI officer Kataria, maintained that his client had merely sought to safeguard public revenue. The court, however, found that the DRI's action, taken after the Customs cleared the goods, was prima facie illegal and unsupported by any written order or recorded reason to believe, as required under the Customs Act. The bench added that "the sixth respondent (the intelligence officer) completely ignored the statutory orders of clearance and exercised powers that prima facie did not authorise him to act in this manner." The court directed Customs to issue a show-cause notice within four weeks, and decide its action within six weeks thereafter. Failing this, the court ordered that the goods, currently lying at the CFS, must be released either unconditionally or against a redemption fine/bank guarantee. Allowing perishable goods to rot without timely adjudication "cannot be justified under any pretext," it said....