9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenging the authority of customs to seize a bank account for realization of drawback amount. Analysis: The petitioner, an exporter, challenged the seizure of their bank account by customs authority for the realization of drawback amount released by customs. The petitioner maintained a Current Account with a bank where customs released drawback amounts. The petitioner alleged that goods were duly received by overseas buyers, payments were made, and duty drawbacks were regularly sought and received. However, the customs authority seized the bank account, preventing the petitioner from operating it. The customs authority opposed the application, alleging the petitioner's involvement in customs duty evasion and fraudulent exports. They claimed to have received intelligence on fraudulent exports involving the petitioner, leading to the decision to withhold the drawback account as a preemptive measure to protect government revenue. The customs authority contended that investigations were ongoing regarding the alleged fraudulent exports, and they had the right to withhold the drawback amount until the allegations were proven. The petitioner argued that once the drawback amount was released into their account, it became their property, and customs had no authority to seize it without a valid legal basis. The court found that no final order had been issued regarding fraudulent exports or the entitlement to drawback amounts. The court held that the customs authority and the bank acted illegally and without jurisdiction in withholding the amount in the petitioner's account, directing them to release the funds and pay interest to the petitioner. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that there was a serious infringement of the petitioner's legal right to their property due to the unauthorized actions of the customs authority and the bank. The court quashed the directive to withhold the amount, ordered the release of funds to the petitioner, and directed the payment of interest on the withheld amount. The court clarified that the judgment did not address the alleged violations of the Customs Act or the petitioner's entitlement to drawbacks, focusing solely on the illegal withholding of funds by the customs authority and the bank. The writ application was successful, with costs assessed to be payable by the contesting Customs Authority.
|
