Delhi High Court - Orders
Nimitraj Bhareja vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 November, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15976/2025, CM APPL. 65382/2025 &CM APPL.
65383/2025
NIMITRAJ BHAREJA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Raheja, Mr. Rohit Raheja and
Mr. Gaurav Prakash, Advs. (M:
9811216445)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivek Sharma, SPC with Ms.
Prernaa Singh & Ms. Bakshsi Vinita,
Advs. for UOI. (M: 9810418275)
Mr. Anurag Ojha, SCC, Mr. Dipak Raj,
Mr. Shashank Kumar and Mr. Avinash
Shukla, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
ORDER
% 06.11.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 65383/20252. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 15976/2025 & CM APPL. 65382/2025
3. The challenge in this case is to the seizure memo dated 12th June, 2024 issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit (hereinafter "DRI") seizing a total of 33,624 number of e- cigarettes/vapes/liquids and 8,40,620 of foreign origin cigarettes (hereinafter "seized goods") which was found in the premises of the Petitioner.
W.P.(C) 15976/2025 Page 1 of 3This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/11/2025 at 20:46:51
4. The seizure notice has been followed by a Show Cause Notice dated 15th December, 2024, (hereinafter "SCN") issued by the DRI, by which the seized goods are proposed to be confiscated along with imposition of penalty.
5. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner is two fold. First submission is that the DRI officials are not authorized officers in terms of Section 3(b) read with Section 6 of the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and Advertisement) Act, 2019 (hereinafter "the 2019 Act"). It is only authorized officers who have the power to enter for search and size without the warrant. Second submission is that the value of the seized goods cannot be determined under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter "the 1962 Act") as the same are not sold in the ordinary course of trade in India.
6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners, however, do not dispute the fact that the import or sale of the seized goods is prohibited under the 2019 Act.
7. Mr. Ojha, ld. SSC on the other hand, submits that the DRI is entitled to proceed under the 1962 Act, as Section 2(33) of the said Act defines 'prohibited goods' which encompasses goods prohibited under any other law in force in India, apart from the provisions of the 1962 Act. The Section 2(33) of the 1962 Act reads as under:
"2(33) ―prohibited goods means any goods the import or export of which is subject to any prohibition under this Act or any other law for the time being in force but does not include any such goods in respect of which the conditions subject to which the goods are permitted to be imported or exported have been complied with;"W.P.(C) 15976/2025 Page 2 of 3
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/11/2025 at 20:46:51
8. Per contra, the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in terms of Section 14 of the 2019 Act provisions of the 1962 Act would not be applicable.
9. The Court has considered the matter. The question that will arise is whether the DRI would be permitted to proceed under the provisions of the 2019 Act without officials of the DRI being notified as authorized officers thereunder.
10. This would require consideration. The Court if of the prima facie view that although there can be no doubt that e-cigarettes/vapes/liquids etc., are all prohibited goods under the 2019 Act, however, the concerned authority that is empowered to take action thereunder ought to be duly notified.
11. Let Mr. Ojha, ld. SCC seek instructions and file a short affidavit in this regard.
12. Let the affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, thereto, be filed within two weeks.
13. In the meantime, the proceedings in the SCN may continue. Reply shall be filed by the Petitioner and personal hearing shall also be granted.
14. After granting a personal hearing, the SCN shall be decided in accordance with law. However, the Order-in-Original shall not be given effect to.
15. List on 9th February, 2026.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
MADHU JAIN, J.
NOVEMBER 6, 2025 jyh/msh W.P.(C) 15976/2025 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/11/2025 at 20:46:51