Union of India. Case: Rajendra Vitthal Shinde Vs Union of India. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberUnion of India
CounselFor Appellant: Shri Anil Balani i/b. Yadav P.R., Advs. and For Respondent: Shri Pradeep S. Jetly, Adv.
JudgesS.C. Dharmadhikari and B.P. Colabawalla, JJ.
IssueCustoms Act, 1962 - Section 122
Citation2016 (332) ELT 699 (Bom)
Judgement DateDecember 22, 2015
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Order:

  1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India discloses as to how the respondents, despite clear legal pronouncements, go on insisting that they can stop the running business activities by freezing the bank accounts of the concerned persons and attaching their movable and immovable properties.

  2. The petitioner is before us complaining that he permanently resides at the address mentioned in cause title at Navi Mumbai and is carrying on lawful business activities. He is challenging the legality and validity of the proceedings initiated by the second respondent to this writ petition. The details of these proceedings are set out in Para 3 and it is stated that what the communications mentioned therein seek to do is to restrain the petitioner from dealing with his immovable properties and freezing of his bank accounts.

  3. A certain consignment stated to be 7.12 metric ton of red sanders, concealed in the cement blocks and bricks of fly ash for export came to be seized by the respondent No. 2 to this writ petition. The respondents, particularly respondent No. 2 is Senior Intelligence Officer in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit.

  4. Mr. Balani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this matter was mentioned urgently, as not only the petitioner came to be arrested on the allegations that he was engaged in smuggling of red sanders and certain endangerous species of wild flora and fauna, but on production before competent Court, he came to be enlarged on bail on 17th October, 2015. By letters commencing from 19th August, 2015, the second respondent has restrained the Petitioner from dealing with his immovable properties, more parti-cularly mentioned in Para 7 and the communications/letters of 19th August, 2015 and 20th August, 2015, copies of which are at Annexures ''B'' to ''E'' to the Writ Petition.

  5. By another communication Annexure ''F'', the bank accounts of the Petitioner have been frozen. The bank accounts stated to be of the petitioner and his group companies, details of which are mentioned in the list at Annexure ''F'', stand frozen and attached.

  6. The petitioner addressed two letters on 29th October, 2015 and 8th November, 2015 requesting the Assistant Director of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to de-freeze the bank accounts and allow to operate the same. There is no response to this request.

  7. The petitioner claims that his legitimate business activities are of distribution of coca-cola at Thane and South Mumbai and distribution of HUL products at Panvel. He has authorized service station of Tata Motors at Kalamboli. He is engaged in distribution of ITC products at Ulhasnagar and he is also having sea food processing and export business. Since all properties are frozen and attached, it is impossible for the petitioner to carry on his day-to-day business. The petitioner''s specific contention and as elaborated by Mr. Balani is that there are no proceedings in the offing. There is no show cause notice nor any penalty is adjudged or imposed so far. Therefore, this attachment and freezing of properties hampers him and not only he gets affected but those depending upon him, namely 475 workers/staff would be unable to earn their livelihood. The petitioner claims that there is no liability of the Department. The goods which are seized are in the custody of the respondents. No interest of the Revenue is prejudicially affected. On the other hand, the mandate of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) is violated.

  8. On such a petition, we had given time to Mr. Jetly on Monday (21st December, 2015) to take instructions and posted the matter today. We had indicated in advance that we would pass final orders on the writ petition today.

  9. Mr. Jetly has relied upon the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. He would submit that this is a clear case of smuggling of red sanders in this country. This is a prohibited activity. The petitioner is believed to be actively involved in the same. That is how the seizure of goods and action under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 was taken.

  10. Mr. Jetly would rely upon Chapter XIV of the Customs Act, 1962 to submit that penalty in terms of the provisions of this Chapter can be imposed. He relied upon Sections 120, 121 and 122 falling in this Chapter.

  11. Mr. Jetly would support the impugned action and submit that this is not a case on par with those dealt with by this Court in several orders and directions. In those matters, the duty liability was not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT