Goods in transit do not constitute import under Customs Act; jurisdiction to seize requires goods to cross customs barriers, and evidence supported Nigerian origin overriding claims of Pakistani origin.

ORDER :

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. This writ petition assails the summons dated 23.6.2025 and the seizure memorandum dated 24.6.2025 issued by the third respondent and the petitioner has further sought for a consequential direction to the third respondent to release the goods.

2. Heard both.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows :

(i) The petitioner is engaged in the business of import of various items of trade and is registered under the laws of Nepal. The petitioner entered into a commercial arrangement with one M/s.Arab and India Spices LLC, based out of Ajman, United Arab Emirates (UAE) for import of unshelled watermelon seeds of Nigerian origin for ultimate import to Nepal. This import was meant for consumption of unshelled watermelon seeds in Nepal.

(ii) In and by two commercial invoices dated 14.5.2025 and 30.5.2025, the petitioner purchased gross aggregate quantity of 1,62,810 Kgs of raw watermelon seeds from the said M/s.Arab and India Spices LLC, which being the exporter. The port of shipment was Ajman and the goods have to ultimately reach the destination namely Nepal. After completing all the necessary formalities, the petitioner arranged for the shipment of goods from UAE, carried by sea route to Kolkata Port, which is the port of discharge for the shipment and declared to be goods constituting traffic in transit, which would ultimately reach the destination namely Nepal.

(iii) The goods landed at Chennai Port on 07.6.2025 for onward transportation to Nepal via Kolkata Port. The Bill of Entry for the goods was duly filled by the Customs House Agent (CHA) of the petitioner namely the 7th respondent and it was specifically mentioned that the goods are in transit and are meant for import in Nepal.

(iv) The grievance of the petitioner is that the goods were detained at Chennai and the impugned summons dated 23.6.2025 came to be issued by the third respondent under Section 118 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act) calling upon the CHA of the petitioner to appear in person or through their authorized agent on 24.6.2025. This summons was not issued to the petitioner on time and it came to be knowledge of the petitioner only in the beginning of July 2025 i.e. much after the date of inquiry.

(v) The seventh respondent forwarded to the petitioner a copy of the impugned seizure memorandum dated 24.6.2025 issued by the fourth respondent and on going through the same, the petitioner understood that the fourth respondent had purported to seize the goods on the pretext that the goods in question originated from Pakistan. It is under these circumstances, the above writ petition has been filed before this Court challenging the impugned summons dated 23.6.2025 and the impugned seizure memorandum dated 24.6.2025 issued by the third respondent.

4. The Senior Intelligence Officer, who is the authorized signatory of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Chennai Zonal Unit, filed a counter on behalf of respondents 3 to 5 wherein they took the following stand :

(i) The DRI, Chennai Zonal Unit received a specific intelligence to the effect that six containers containing watermelon seeds of Pakistani origin were being transshipped through India at the Chennai Port