2022 (1) TMI 917 - HC - Customs

Attachment of bank accounts of the petitioner - Jurisdiction - proper officers within the meaning of Section 234 of the Customs Act - contrary to Section 110(5) of the Customs Act 1962 inserted with effect from 01.10.2019 or not - HELD THAT - Though the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the first and second respondents appeared equally meritorious it is noticed that the petitioner s representation dated 22.10.2021 and the legal notice dated 20.12.2021 has not been received adequate attention - It is not clear whether the bank accounts of the petitioner has been attached at the behest of the first and second respondents or by the jurisdictional officers of the customs. Writ petition is disposed off by directing the first respondent to give proper reply/pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 22.10.2021 and legal notice dated 20.12.2021 of the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Attachment of bank accounts under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Authority of respondents to attach bank accounts.
3. Compliance with statutory provisions.
4. Proper reply to petitioner's representation and legal notice.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contended that the respondents wrongly attached their bank accounts before the Court, alleging a violation of Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that the respondents lacked authority as they were not proper officers under Section 234 of the Customs Act, citing the decision in Canon India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs, 2021.

2. The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents opposed the petitioner's claim, stating that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court and not finalized. They argued that the respondents were indeed proper officers empowered to investigate and issue orders under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner, in response, emphasized the need for compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 110(5) for bank attachments.

3. Despite the merits of both parties' arguments, the Court noted the lack of attention given to the petitioner's representation and legal notice. The Court observed ambiguity regarding whether the bank accounts were attached by the respondents or customs officers. Consequently, the Court directed the first respondent to respond to the petitioner's submissions within fifteen days and allowed the petitioner to make further representations if necessary.

4. The judgment concluded by disposing of the Writ Petition without costs, with the provision for additional submissions by the petitioner and the closure of the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition. The Court's decision focused on ensuring a proper reply to the petitioner's grievances and addressing the procedural concerns raised regarding the attachment of bank accounts under the Customs Act, 1962.