TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on or about 7th September, 1996 the petitioners' premises were searched by the officers from the Customs Department and various goods including the documents pertaining to the bank accounts of the petitioners which included those of the Account No. 22021 in Bank of India, Breach Candy Branch at Mumbai, Account No. 1991 in Indian Overseas Bank, Nariman Point Branch, Mumbai and Account No. 74638 of Bank of Baroda, Clock Tower Branch at Ludhiana were seized by them. Consequent to the seizure of the documents, various statements were recorded and the said Bank accounts were ordered to be freezed. In the year 1997, as the petitioners were to receive certain amount in the course of their business, under letter dated 16-12-1997 issued by the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the investigation is not yet completed, issuance of show cause notice/charge sheet does not arise. I say that the Bank accounts of the petitioners were frozen as a precautionary measure since the export remittances received by the petitioner were credited in his bank account. 5.In terms of Section 110(1) of the said Act, the Customs authorities are entitled to seize the goods liable to be confiscated and the goods include currency in terms of definition of the term goods in Section 2(22) of the said Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 110 provides that if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the said Act, he may seize such goods. However, sub-section (2) of Section 110 provides that where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms, on sufficient cause being shown, for a period not exceeding six months. We are fully aware that in a given case where the delay is occurred on account of acts on the part of owners of the goods then such period can even be excluded from the period of six months as was held by the Apex Court in the case of Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.) = AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1795. Nevertheless the authorities under the said Act have no power to continue to keep the goods seized under Section 110(1) after the expiry of period of 6 months unless they follow the procedure prescribed under Section 124 and/or 110(2) of the said Act, as the facts and the circumstances of the case may warrant. The provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with Section 124. It is to be noted that the accounts have remained frozen at least from 1998 onwards and till this date there has been on action on the part of the respondents in accordance with the provisions of law. There is also no explanation for such inaction on the part of the respondents. In spite of repeated query being made, the Advocate for the respondents, apart from submitting that the said amount is seized for other investigation either under the Income-tax Act or some other Act and that too without making good by producing documentary evidence in that regard, no explanation is forthcoming to justify continuation of the accounts in frozen condition. In the circumstances, therefore, we are left with no alternative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
