9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id transactions were/are not tainted. No endeavour even in that direction has been made. We, at this stage, have thus but to presume that the monies in the bank account which has been frozen, are sale proceeds of smuggled goods. - Decided against assessee. - LPA 136/2014 - - - Dated:- 23-4-2015 - Hon ble The Chief Justice Hon ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. H.G.R. Khattar, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Mr. Roshan Lal Goel Mr. Rohitendra Deb, Advs. for R-1/UOI. Mr. S.K. Dubey with MS. Sushma Yadav Mr. Vikram Singh, Advs. for R-2/DRI. JUDGMENT Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 20th December, 2013 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) no.7449/2012 filed by the appellant to the extent the same, while directing the release of the amount deposited in the bank account of the appellant with the respondent no.3 Citibank after the date the same was frozen at the instance of the respondent no.2 Addl. Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), makes the same subject to the appellant furnishing a bank guarantee to the respondent no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh value pesticides / Insecticides / Herbicides / Fungicides from China under the guise of Sodium Bi-carbonate, Thionyl Chloride and Sodium Bromide and thereby evading higher customs duty; (b) that live consignments imported by the firms were intercepted and search operations were carried out and samples of goods stored in various warehouses were drawn and sent to Central Insecticides Board, Faridabad and Institute of Pesticide Formulation Technology, Gurgaon; (c) that the extent of undervaluation resorted to by the said firms was massive; (d) that investigations revealed that such import was being done in the name of several fake front firms by one Mr. Vimal Kumar, proprietor of M/s. V.V.K. Traders, Bhagwan Dass Nagar, East Punjabi Bagh, new Delhi; goods imported against these fake front firms namely M/s Mehta Overseas, M/s Chopra Overseas and M/s Umesh Impex etc. were shown to be sold to individuals against fake cash bills; the imported chemicals with the correct description were shown to be supplied by another set of fake front firms to several firms controlled by said Mr. Vimal Kumar through his brother Mr. Kamal Kumar; one such firm namely the appellant was being used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of illegally imported Pesticides in the name of non-existent firms; (q) it appeared that the Citibank account at Delhi was opened only to facilitate easy transfer of money to non-existent firms and for which reason only a person with whom the appellant firm had no relationship was made the signatory thereof; (r) that the said bank account had been frozen under Section 110(3) of the Customs Act; and, (s) that the investigations into the matter had not culminated till then. 5. The appellant filed a rejoinder to the aforesaid counter affidavit but need is not felt to refer thereto as no reference thereto was made during the hearing. 6. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment found / observed / held:- I. that it was the contention of the appellant, relying on Harbans Lal Vs. Collector of Central Excise Customs (1993) 3 SCC 656 that since no notice under Section 110(2) had been given within a period of six months, the goods seized were liable to be restored to the person from whose possession they had been seized; II. per contra, it was the contention of the respondent no.2 DRI that though Section 110(2) provides for a notice to be served within six m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber, 2013 had already been issued and adjudication was pending - a copy of the said show cause notice was handed over in the Court; and, (ii) that the appellant is not co-operating in the said proceedings. 9. The counsel for the appellant in rejoinder argued, (i) that the appellant had been granted bail by the Supreme Court and it had further been ordered that proceedings be held in the presence of the Advocate for the appellant; (ii) that the offences under the Customs Act are bailable; (iii) nothing against the appellant was found in the search seizure; (iv) that the notice of freezing the account is without any particulars; and, (v) copies of some bills, ledger and accounts was handed over to show that all the transactions of the appellant are above board and tax paid. 10. The appellant neither along with the writ petition nor along with the appeal has filed the order or direction or notice freezing the bank account of the appellant. All that the appellant filed along with the writ petition was a copy of a letter dated 4th August, 2012 written by it to the respondent no.2 DRI for release of the money in the frozen account, on the ground that the partners in the firm had ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector of Customs (Prev.), W.B., Calcutta 2000 (123) ELT 531 (Tribunal); and, (ix) Laxman Overseas Vs. Union of India 167 (2010) DLT 302 and the counsel for the respondent no.2 DRI has handed over copies of, (i) Black s Law Dictionary VIth Edition; (ii) Words and Phrases IVth Edition; (iii) AM Overseas Vs. Union of India 2006 (194) ELT 267; (iv) Rohit Kumar Vs. Union of India 2002 (141) ELT 27; (v) Union of India Vs. A.M. Overseas (2006) 6 SCC 19; (vi) M.K. International, Ludhiana Vs. Union of India 2006 Indlaw PNH 2003; (vii) Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. Euroasia Global (2009) 6 SCC 58; (viii) LPA No.450/2012 titled as Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Sajjan Kumar; (ix) Harbans Lal Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh (1993) 3 SCC 656; and, (x) Jeevraj Vs. Collector of Customs (1997) 8 SCC 519. 13. In so far as we could understand, the case of the respondent no.2 DRI against the appellant is that the appellant firm facilitated sale of goods imported by mis-declaration and evasion of stamp duty. 14. Section 111 of the Act, to which a reference is found in the counter affidavit of the respondent no.2 DRI, entitles the DRI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
