Provisional release is rightly denied for prohibited imports implicating national security pending adjudication.

M/s M Y Impex, a proprietorship concern holding IEC No. DBAPM9281F, imported 2,85,000 kg of dry dates in ten containers from Dubai, declaring the goods as UAE-origin under CTI 0804 1030.

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) suspected that the goods had originated in Pakistan, been transported to Dubai, and had thereafter been re-stuffed and falsely declared as UAE-origin goods to circumvent DGFT Notification No. 06/2025-26 dated 2 May 2025, which prohibited imports from Pakistan on national-security and public-policy grounds.

Following investigation, the goods were seized on 6 October 2025 on the belief that they were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.

The appellant initially approached the Bombay High Court seeking release or re-export of the goods, but withdrew the writ petition on 26 February 2026, while reserving its rights to seek sale or realization of the goods if permissible in law.

The Commissioner extended the time for issuance of the show-cause notice by six months under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, and the appellant was informed of the extension on 25 February 2026.

The appellant subsequently applied for provisional release under Section 110A, but the Commissioner rejected the application on 9 July 2026, finding that the goods were prima facie prohibited and that the transaction involved fraud and national-security concerns.

Whether the appeal challenging rejection of provisional release was maintainable despite the objection that it had not been filed by the importer or was pursued through a power-of-attorney holder.

Whether the seized dry dates were eligible for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, pending adjudication.

Whether the Commissioner had validly rejected provisional release considering the alleged Pakistani origin of the goods, their prohibited nature, the national-security implications, and the issuance of the show-cause notice.

Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962, which gives an inclusive definition of “importer” covering an owner, beneficial owner, or person holding himself out to be the importer, and Section 129A, which permits an aggrieved person to appeal against an order of the Commissioner of Customs.

Section 110A authorises the adjudicating authority, pending adjudication, to provisionally release seized goods to the owner upon execution of a bond and furnishing such security and compliance with such conditions as may be prescribed by the authority.

Goods imported contrary to a prohibition are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), while goods involving misdeclaration are covered by Section 111(m); adjudication and imposition of penalties fall within the statutory framework of Sections 122 and 124.

DGFT Notification No. 06/2025-26 dated 2 May 2025 prohibited direct or indirect import or transit of goods of Pakistani origin in the interest of national security and public policy.

The statutory procedure concerning extension of time and issuance of the show-cause notice had been followed under Section 110(2).

The Tribunal first held that the appeal could be considered because Section 2(26) adopts a broad definition of “importer” and Section 129A permits an appeal by any person aggrieved by the Commissioner’s order; it therefore declined to reject the appeal on the basis of the power-of-attorney objection.

On merits, the Tribunal treated provisional release under Section 110A as a matter for the adjudicating authority, subject to appropriate bond, security, and conditions, rather than as an automatic entitlement.

The goods had been seized on a reasonable belief that they were Pakistani-origin goods falsely declared as UAE-origin goods and were consequently prohibited and liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m).

The Tribunal further noted that the time for issuing the show-cause notice had been extended and that the notice was ultimately issued on 12 August 2026, before the appeal was heard on 18 August 2026; accordingly, the statutory adjudication process was continuing in accordance with law.

Given the alleged fraudulent import arrangement, the prohibited character of the goods, and the national-security dimension, the Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the Commissioner’s refusal of provisional release.

The issues concerning final confiscation and penalties were expressly left open.

It upheld the Commissioner’s rejection of provisional release, particularly in view of the prima facie prohibited nature of the goods, alleged misdeclaration of origin, national-security concerns, and the issuance of the show-cause notice within the extended statutory period.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Revenue’s miscellaneous application was also dismissed accordingly.