9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 346 - AT - CustomsSCN Extension of time limit for issue - Commissioner failed to show that the seizure of Bank account required for investigation Held that - Commissioner failed to show the sufficient cause for seizure of the Bank account by extending another period of six months for issuance of the show-cause notice and the same is not justified
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of extending the time limit for issuing a show-cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Validity of freezing the bank account of the exporter. 3. Determination of whether the funds in the bank account are the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Extending the Time Limit for Issuing a Show-Cause Notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962: The primary issue revolves around whether the Commissioner of Customs (Exports) was justified in extending the time limit for issuing a show-cause notice by another six months under the proviso of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants argued that there was no sufficient cause for such an extension and that the Commissioner failed to judiciously consider their submissions. The relevant legal provisions, including Section 110(1) and (2), Section 113, Section 121, and Section 124 of the Customs Act, were examined to determine the legality of the extension. The Tribunal noted that while Section 110(1) allows the proper officer to seize goods if they are believed to be liable to confiscation, the proviso to Section 110(2) requires "sufficient cause being shown" for extending the time limit for issuing a show-cause notice. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner must provide a definite and cogent reason for such an extension, which was not adequately demonstrated in this case. 2. Validity of Freezing the Bank Account of the Exporter: The appellants contended that the freezing of their bank account by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) was not justified and lacked legal basis. They argued that the funds in the bank account were foreign remittances against exports and not proceeds from the sale of smuggled goods. The Tribunal considered various case laws, including Vikas Gumbar v. UOI, Raghuram Grah Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, and Anil Kumar Mehensaria v. C.C. Port, which highlighted that freezing bank accounts without proper legal authority is not permissible. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner failed to ascertain whether the funds in the bank account were indeed the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The Tribunal also noted that excess duty drawback could be recovered under Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties, and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, and not by freezing the bank account under Section 110 of the Customs Act. 3. Determination of Whether the Funds in the Bank Account are the Sale Proceeds of Smuggled Goods: The Tribunal examined whether the funds in the bank account could be considered the sale proceeds of smuggled goods under Section 121 of the Customs Act. The investigation revealed that the appellants had exported goods with inflated values to claim higher export incentives. However, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the funds in the bank account were the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The Tribunal emphasized that if the funds were the actual sale proceeds of the exported goods, there would be no case of overvaluation. Conversely, if the funds were not the actual sale proceeds, the seizure of the bank account would be illegal. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner failed to show sufficient cause for extending the seizure of the bank account. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order extending the seizure of the bank account by six months for issuing a show-cause notice, stating that the extension was not justified without a clear determination of whether the funds were the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief, while clarifying that the investigation could continue, and a show-cause notice could be issued in accordance with the law. Pronouncement: The judgment was pronounced in court on 30-7-2010.
|
