9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Freezing of bank accounts by Customs Department without compliance with legal provisions. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the issue of whether the bank accounts of the petitioner, frozen by the Customs Department, can remain in that state indefinitely without following the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners' premises were searched in 1996, leading to the seizure of documents related to their bank accounts. Subsequently, their accounts in various banks were frozen. Despite requests from the petitioners, the accounts remained frozen. The Customs Department justified the freezing as a precautionary measure due to ongoing investigations and export remittances credited to the accounts. The court delved into the legal framework under the Customs Act. Section 110 allows for the seizure of goods, including currency, if liable for confiscation. However, if no notice is given within six months, the goods must be returned. Section 124 mandates the issuance of a show cause notice before confiscation, providing the owner with an opportunity to be heard. The court emphasized the necessity for Customs authorities to take steps for confiscation within six months, extendable for valid reasons. Failure to follow these procedures can lead to the release of seized goods. Citing precedents, the court highlighted that authorities cannot detain seized goods beyond the specified period without adhering to legal procedures. The judgment referenced various cases to underscore the importance of following due process before confiscating or continuing to detain goods. In this case, the respondents failed to demonstrate compliance with Sections 110 and 124 regarding the frozen bank accounts. Despite ongoing investigations, no concrete action was taken as per the law. As a result, the court ordered the release of the accounts as per the petition's prayer clause. Ultimately, the petition succeeded, and the court allowed the release of the frozen accounts. The judgment made the rule absolute with no costs imposed. The court rejected the request for a stay on the order. The parties were directed to act upon a copy of the order duly authenticated by the court's personnel.
|
