9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Seizure of bank accounts by the Customs Department in violation of a court order. 2. Legality of the seizure and subsequent orders. 3. Justification for the seizure based on duty drawback fraud and mis-declaration. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioners sought the quashing of an order seizing the balance in their bank accounts by a Senior Intelligence Officer, which was in violation of a previous court order. The bank accounts were initially seized by the Customs Department, and the petitioners challenged this through a writ petition, which was allowed by the Court. However, a fresh order was passed, leading to the current dispute. Issue 2: The Court examined the legality of the seizure in light of the Customs Department's justifications based on the Income-tax Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court found that no order determining the petitioners' liability had been passed, rendering the seizure unjustified. The Court directed the release of the bank accounts unless a valid order justifying the seizure was passed within a month. Issue 3: The respondents argued that the amounts in the bank accounts were proceeds of spurious/smuggled goods and fraudulently obtained duty drawbacks, justifying their confiscation under the Customs Act. They contended that the earlier order did not prevent the subsequent seizure based on new developments, such as fraud and mis-declaration by the petitioners in obtaining export incentives. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the subsequent order justifying the seizure based on duty drawback fraud was valid. The Court clarified that it did not assess the validity of the new order on its merits to avoid prejudicing the petitioners' remedies against it.
|
