9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The appeal came up for admission on 18th March, 2014 when the counsels for the respondents appeared on advance notice. The tenor of the order sheet thereafter shows that though no formal notice of the appeal was issued but the counsels were heard finally on the appeal from time to time. Vide order dated 7th July, 2014 the writ record was also requisitioned. 3. The appellant filed the writ petition from which this appeal arises pleading:- (i) that the account of the appellant with the Punjabi Bagh Branch of the respondent no.3 Citibank was frozen at the instance of the respondent no.2 DRI in July, 2011; (ii) the aforesaid account was frozen in the follow up of an investigation initiated by the respondent no.2 DRI against few companies who were importing high value Pesticides/Insecticides in the guise of Sodium Bi-Carbonate; however even on culmination of investigation, the appellant had neither been indicted nor arraigned as a noticee in the show cause notice issued in relation to the said matter; (iii) the order of freezing of the bank account was passed without any notice to the appellant; (iv) that though the appellant firm is also engaged in manufacture of different type ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g imported Insecticides/Pesticides of different varieties worth more than Rs. 2 crores was detained/seized for further investigation; (f) modest estimate of the duty evasion on account of misdeclaration and undervaluation was in excess of Rs. 4 crore; (g) that the test reports confirmed that the goods were Pesticides; (h) correlation of batch number of the goods detained at the unit of the appellant with imported goods confirmed that the said goods were mis-declared as Sodium Bi-carbonate at the time of import; (i) that the mis-declared and undervalued imported goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d), (f) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962; (j) that the importers and other persons involved are liable for penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act; (k) on 10th August, 2011, statement of one Mr. Arpit Rajvanshi a former partner of the appellant firm was recorded under Section 108 and particulars of bank accounts of the appellant learnt; (l) on 27th August, 2012 statement of Shri Om Prakash another partner of the appellant firm was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, who disclosed that besides him Shri Inderjit was the only other partner of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 SCC 519; III. that it was also the contention of the respondent no.2 DRI that if unconditional de-freezing of the bank account was allowed, it would become difficult for the DRI to recover the customs duty and penalty which may fall due; reliance in this regard was placed on Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Euroasia Global (2009) 6 SCC 58; IV. that the Supreme Court in Harbans Lal supra has held that liability to release the seized goods upon non-service of notice under Section 110(2) within six months does not affect the proceedings for confiscation of the goods under Section 124 of the Act; V. it was also the contention of the counsel for the respondent no.2 DRI that the seizure in the instant case was not under Section 110(2) but under Section 110(3) of the Act whereunder there is no requirement for issuance of notice within six months and that investigations were in progress and show cause notices were likely to be issued soon and that freezing of the account was only to ensure recovery of customs duty which was evaded by mis-declaration of goods; VI. however Section 110(3) dealt with seizure of documents or things and would not cover freezing of bank account; free ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms Act and which are as under:- "110. Seizure of goods, documents and things. - (1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods: Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer. (2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized: Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs for a period not exceeding six months. (3)The proper officer may seize any documents or things which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act." 12. The hearing before us revolved around whether such freezing of bank account is confiscation/seizure of goods. We ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. So far as we could understand, the present is a case of seizure of the sale proceeds of the purportedly improperly imported goods. A provision therefor was found by us in Section 121 of the Act and to which attention of the counsels was drawn during the hearing and which is as under:- "121. Confiscation of sale-proceeds of smuggled goods. - Where any smuggled goods are sold by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are smuggled goods, the sale-proceeds thereof shall be liable to confiscation. 15. We had enquired from the counsels that since a express provision for confiscation of sale proceeds of smuggled goods exists, whether it could be said that the same was a seizure under Section 110. 16. We could not get any answer. 17. We, without even the order / notice / direction of freezing of the account and without proper pleadings, and merely on the basis of copies of some documents handed over across the bar, do not deem it appropriate to render any interpretation of Sections 110 and 121 of the Act. Suffice it is to state that from the show cause notice dated 29th November, 2013 issued by the respondent no.2 DRI to the appellant, a case of the monie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
