Pakistan-origin goods transiting India to Nepal can be detained under the import ban, Madras High Court rules; origin dispute left to customs officials

The first respondent’s six containers, carrying 4,050 bags of raw watermelon seeds for onward transhipment to Nepal, arrived at Chennai Port.

After examination, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence found that 300 bags bore labels indicating Pakistan as their country of origin; the accompanying documents variously identified Nigeria and Sudan.

The goods were seized under a mahazar dated 27 June 2025.

The writ court quashed the seizure memo and summons and directed release of the goods for transhipment.

The Union of India and customs authorities appealed.

Whether goods arriving in India for onward transhipment are subject to the prohibition on direct or indirect import or transit of goods originating in or exported from Pakistan.

Whether the disputed country of origin could be determined by the writ court on the documents before it, and whether the entire consignment could remain seized pending that determination.

Whether the India–Nepal transit arrangements displaced the prohibition under domestic law.

The Court applied paragraph 2.20A of the Foreign Trade Policy, inserted by Notification No. 6/2025-26 under Sections 3 and 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, which prohibits direct or indirect import or transit of goods originating in or exported from Pakistan.

Under Sections 2(25) and 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962, goods brought into India are “imported goods” unless cleared for home consumption, while Section 46(1) distinguishes goods intended for transit or transhipment from those requiring a bill of entry for home consumption or warehousing.

Section 54 provides for transhipment, subject to Section 11.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Mustafa & Najibai Trading Co., holding that goods brought within Indian customs waters contrary to a prohibition may be confiscated regardless of the owners’ intent.

It also held that international obligations do not prevail over clear domestic law, and noted the security and prohibited-goods exceptions in Article 11 of the transit convention.

The Court held that the notification expressly covered transit, so the fact that the goods were not cleared for home consumption did not take them outside its scope; their arrival at Chennai for transhipment was sufficient to attract the prohibition if they originated in or were exported from Pakistan.

The documents presented conflicting origin information, making origin a disputed question of fact that the writ court should not have conclusively resolved.

The parties were instead left to pursue the available statutory procedures.

The Court declined to separate the 300 labelled bags from the balance because all 4,050 bags formed part of the same consignment and the origin dispute remained unresolved.

The India–Nepal transit arrangements did not override the applicable domestic prohibition.

It left the parties to resolve the disputed origin question through the applicable statutory procedures and declined to release or bifurcate the consignment at that stage.

No costs were awarded.