2021 (10) TMI 1268 - HC - Customs

Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - applicability of time limitation - formal order of attachment was not served on petitioner - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The provisions contained in section 110(5) of the Act are clear. An order of provisional attachment ceases to be valid beyond 6 (six) months of such order being made provided, of course, its life has been extended in accordance with law at the end of six months to remain alive for a further period not exceeding 6 (six) months. The period of 1 (one) year has expired and, therefore, the order of provisional attachment, by operation of law, has ceased to be in operation. The Joint Commissioner of Customs, respondent no. 2, is directed to immediately communicate to the petitioner s banker that validity of the attachment order has ceased and that the petitioner is entitled to operate the relevant bank account, which was under attachment. Let such communication be made as early as possible but not later than 7 (seven) days from date - petition allowed.

Issues:
1. Provisional attachment of bank account under section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Validity of the provisional attachment order.
3. Petitioner's request for lifting the order of attachment.
4. Interpretation of the provisions of section 110(5) of the Act.
5. Communication of cessation of validity of the attachment order to the petitioner's banker.
6. Decision on the writ petition.

Analysis:

1. The Customs authorities provisionally attached the petitioner's bank account under section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, but the formal order of attachment was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to contact the Customs authorities directly for obtaining the order.

2. The order of provisional attachment, as per section 110(5) of the Act, initially has a lifespan of six months, extendable up to a maximum of one year. The petitioner sought the lifting of the attachment order on their bank account maintained with a respondent banker.

3. The High Court heard arguments from both parties' advocates, Mr. Pathak for the petitioner and Mr. Kantharia for the respondents, regarding the provisional attachment issue.

4. The Court clarified that as per the provisions of section 110(5) of the Act, an order of provisional attachment automatically ceases to be valid after one year from its issuance, even if its life is extended for a maximum of six months after the initial six-month period.

5. Consequently, the Court directed the Joint Commissioner of Customs to inform the petitioner's banker promptly that the attachment order's validity has expired, allowing the petitioner to operate the bank account within seven days from the date of the judgment.

6. The writ petition was allowed, with no costs imposed on either party. However, the Court emphasized that this order does not prevent the respondents from taking legal action against the petitioner for any violations of the law in accordance with due process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Court's decision on each matter, ensuring clarity and legal accuracy in summarizing the case.

← Previous Next →