2023 (1) TMI 910 - HC - Customs

Freezing of Bank Account of petitioner - non-release of the export shipment made by the petitioner - representation requesting for de-freezing of his bank account as per the provisions of the section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 not been considered - HELD THAT - No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner's representations seeking for release of the subject export consignment as well as for de-freezing the petitioner's bank account is considered on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's representations as it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that Air Customs Investigating Unit is investigating the subject export consignment of the petitioner as well as the previous exports made by the petitioner - Since the petitioner has not given separate representation for de-freezing of its bank account by the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner will have to send a fresh comprehensive representation to the respondents requesting them to release the subject export consignment of the petitioner as well as for de-freezing of the petitioner's bank account. The bank accounts and goods are directed to be released - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-release of export shipment and freezing of bank account challenged in writ petitions.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed two writ petitions challenging the communication directing to freeze the bank account and seeking release of goods meant for export. The petitioner's goods for export were seized under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 without notice of reasons provided by the respondents. The petitioner cooperated by giving statements and representations for release of goods, but the respondents did not consider them. A communication was sent to freeze the bank account without explanation, causing hardship to the petitioner in business operations.

The petitioner argued that the bank account could be operated under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 upon providing a bond. The representation for de-freezing the bank account was also not considered by the respondents. The petitioner, having received payment from the foreign buyer, faced potential breach of contract claims due to delays caused by the respondents' actions. The petitioner clarified not seeking benefits from the Government for the export consignment.

The respondents did not file a counter, hindering the court from granting a positive direction on the main relief sought by the petitioner. The petitioner requested consideration of representations for release of goods and de-freezing the bank account within a short time, emphasizing the losses suffered. The court highlighted the ongoing investigation by the Air Customs Investigating Unit into the export consignment and previous exports made by the petitioner.

Since the petitioner did not separately request de-freezing the bank account, the court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh comprehensive representation to the Customs authorities for release of the export consignment and de-freezing of the bank account within a specified timeframe. The authorities were instructed to pass final orders within four weeks, considering the provisions of section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.