2018 (7) TMI 1018 - HC - Customs

Freezing of Bank Accounts - goods under seizure - Mis-declaration of value and description of goods - evasion of Anti-Dumping Duty - Held that - It is true that a provisional release order is passed but the goods are not released. The goods would not be released until the petitioner complies with the terms and conditions of the provisional release order. Therefore, the goods continue to be under seizure. If the goods are under seizure and merely because a provisional release order is passed, there is no justification for continuation of the attachment of the petitioner s bank accounts. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of imported goods and freezing of bank accounts.
2. Allegations of misdeclaration and evasion of Anti-Dumping Duty.
3. Arrest of the petitioner by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
4. Rejection of bail application followed by release on bail by the Court of Sessions.
5. Provisional release of seized goods with conditions.
6. Continued freezing of bank accounts despite provisional release of goods.
7. Legality of attaching bank accounts along with seizure of goods.
8. Challenge to the Competent Authority's order approving provisional release.
9. Justification for the attachment of bank accounts in the absence of admission of liability.
10. Court's direction to raise the attachment on bank accounts while allowing recovery of duty.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner was aggrieved by the seizure of imported goods and freezing of bank accounts by respondent bankers before legal proceedings were initiated. The petitioner, alleged to be the proprietor of a company evading Anti-Dumping Duty, was arrested by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for misdeclaration of goods. Despite being granted bail by the Court of Sessions, the seized goods were provisionally released with conditions, while the bank accounts remained frozen.

2. The Court noted that the Competent Authority approved the provisional release of goods with conditions, which the petitioner did not challenge. However, the continued freezing of bank accounts was deemed unjustified as the goods were still under seizure, and the petitioner had not admitted liability for duty evasion. The Court emphasized that the authorities must act in accordance with the law and that the petitioner had the right to challenge any orders determining amounts due.

3. In light of the above, the Court directed the immediate raising of the attachment on the petitioner's bank accounts, without prejudicing the respondents' right to recover the allegedly evaded duty lawfully. The Court clarified that its decision did not absolve the petitioner from criminal liability or express an opinion on the merits of the provisional release order, keeping all contentions open for both parties. The writ petition was allowed with the specified directions, and no costs were awarded.