Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2024 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 538 - HC - CustomsValidity of show cause notice - Jurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - Attachment of Bank Accounts of petitioner - Diversion of duty-free imported gold under the Advance Authorization Scheme - HELD THAT:- In terms of Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, the attachment of the bank account cannot continue beyond the period of six months, the same can be extended by another period of six months in terms of proviso to Section 110(5). The petitioner’s bank accounts were initially attached from 20.08.2020 till 20.02.2021. The attachment was extended in relation to one bank account in Yes Bank till 20.08.2021. The order of attachment of bank accounts, thus, has ceased to be operative with efflux of time, and therefore, no order is required to be passed in regard to the prayer seeking defreezing of the bank accounts of the petitioner. There is prima facie some merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 53 kg gold bars, at the time of detention, were found in the declared premises and, thus, could not have been seized. The said gold was cleared from customs in late hours of 13.08.2020. The said gold was safely kept by the principal officers of the petitioner company. The gold could not be brought inside the declared premises because a search was being conducted during the relevant time on 13.08.2020 / 14.08.2020. However, it was brought inside immediately thereafter. At this stage, it is not relevant to consider whether the petitioner would ultimately succeed. The arguments raised require adjudication of facts - Whether the allegations would conclusively prove case against the assessee is not material. The same is in the realm of subjective satisfaction, which at this stage, cannot be said to be unfounded. Any such adjudication by this Court would amount to adjudicating the Show Cause Notice dated 11.08.2021. The adjudication of some of the issues raised would necessarily involve addressing disputed questions of fact and it would not be apposite to do so in these proceedings. Unless the High Court is fully satisfied that the show cause notice is ex facie without jurisdiction, a writ petition should not be entertained - In the present case, admittedly the contentions advanced can be urged before the Adjudicating Authority. It is a settled law that the statutory fora are empowered to adjudicate not only the factual aspects, but also the issues in relation to their jurisdiction and other legal aspects. The Gold, in relation to which the petitioner is seeking revalidation / extension of the period of export is lying seized with the respondents pending adjudication of the Show Cause Notice dated 11.08.2021. The petitioner would be at liberty to apply for any such extension/ revalidation of the Advance Authorisation licence after the adjudication of the Show Cause Notice dated 11.08.2021. As and when any such application is filed, the DGFT shall consider the same in accordance with law, keeping in mind the peculiar facts of the case, as the petitioner is contesting Respondent no. 2’s power to seize the gold and has been effectively prevented from exporting the same. The DGFT shall also consider the petitioner’s request for waiver or relaxation of the composition fee. This Court does not consider it apposite to pass any direction for quashing of the Seizure Order dated 28.12.2020, whereby the gold was seized - Petition disposed off.
|