M/S Damroo Enterprise Thru. Prop. Mr. Shashikant vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 666 of 2026

¶3

M/S Damroo Enterprise Thru. Prop. Mr. Shashikant

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) U.P. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raghvendra P. Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Kuldeepak Nag (K.D.Nag), Digvijay Nath Dubey, S M Singh Royekwar

¶8

Court No. - 3

¶9

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

¶10

1. Counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 in Court today is taken on record.

¶11

2. Sri Anuj Singh, Advocate has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of the respondents No.1 & 2 in Court today, which is also taken on record.

¶12

3 . Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Anuj Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 & 2 and Sri S M Singh Royekwar, learned A.A.G. assisted by Sri Shubhang Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3.

¶13

4. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner has made the following main reliefs:-

¶14

"i. Certiorari quashing the 3 impugned orders all dated 24.12.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 u/s 110-A of the Customs Act (Annexure No. 1);

¶15

ii. Certiorari quashing the 3 seizure orders dated all dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure No.2) passed by respondent no. 3, as being without jurisdiction;

¶16

iii. Mandamus be issued directing the respondent authorities to forthwith release the seized Areca Nuts (Suprari) in favour of the petitioner;

¶17

iv. Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to drop the seizure proceedings as being without jurisdiction, in the absence of any reason to

¶18

WTAX No. 666 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

believe that the seized goods are of Foreign origin;

¶21

v. Mandamus/Prohibition be issued restraining/prohibiting the respondent authorities from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner with regard to the goods allegedly seized by them."

¶22

5. It is to be noted that after the seizure took place in the present case, the petitioner approached the Allahabad Bench of this Court in Writ Tax No. 8076 of 2025 in re: M/s Dumroo Enterprise vs. Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate Revenue Intelligence, Sub-Regional Unit and another , wherein the coordinate Bench was pleased to pass an order dated December 18, 2025, which is delineated below:-

¶23

"1. Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the DRI and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the Customs.

¶24

The grievance being that the detention memo and panchnama etc have not been supplied to the petitioner, Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the DRI states that such proceedings have been completed and service has been effected on the driver of the vehicle. He prays that he may be granted a day's time to bring the same on record.

¶25

In view of statement made, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage. It is accordingly, disposed of with the observation that the copies of detention memo and panchnama be supplied to Sri Subham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, by Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the DRI by tomorrow together with details of service of those documents, if any, on the responsible person/vehicle in-charge.

¶26

All other relief being claimed by the petitioner in this petition may remain to be availed in accordance with law such that if any application for provisional release is made within a period of two weeks, the same may be dealt with and decided within a further period of two weeks.

¶27

Writ petition is disposed of."

¶28

6. The petitioner, thereafter, made an application for provisional release, which has been rejected by orders dated December 24, 2025. The petitioner has now approached this Court with concurrent prayers with regard to quashing of the impugned orders dated December 24, 2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Commissionerate Lucknow, and the seizure orders dated November 13, 2025 passed by the

¶29

WTAX No. 666 of 2026

¶30

3

¶31

Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, GSRU, Gorakhpur.

¶32

7. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Customs-authorities and DRI, wherein they submit that since the petitioner has already approached the Allahabad Bench with regard to the seizure, the appropriate Court would be the Allahabad Bench itself and not the Lucknow Bench.

¶33

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the Lucknow Bench also has jurisdiction, as the subsequent order with regard to provisional release of the goods under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, 1962 was passed by the Lucknow Commissionerate, DRI.

¶34

9. Another ground has been raised by the petitioner, wherein he submits that he has not been provided with the forensic reports of two laboratories that have been carried out by the authorities, wherein he submits that the goods have been shown to be of Indian origin. He submits that since these relevant documents have not been provided to him, he is unable to put up his challenge with regard to the seizure in an appropriate manner.

¶35

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Customsauthorities submits that these documents have never been sought for in writing by the petitioner.

¶36

11. In light of the above submissions, we are of the view that the Allahabad Bench is the appropriate forum, as the matter has already been heard once by the Allahabad Bench. Furthermore, we direct the authorities to provide copies of the two forensic lab reports to the petitioner, if an application is made by the petitioner in writing.

¶37

12. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Allahabad Bench, in accordance with law.

¶38

May 6, 2026 cks/-

¶39

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Damroo Enterprise Thru. Prop. Mr. Shashikant v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Damroo Enterprise Thru. Prop. Mr. Shashikant v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mamta Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Comm. and Secy. Board. of Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Jamiluddin Alias Kalu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and 4 Others

Uma Devi and Another vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. of Revenue Ministry of Finance New Delhi and 3 Others

Archana Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt., Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Nafeesa Khatoon vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others

Salauddin vs UOI Thru.Its Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others