Court orders immediate unfreezing of bank accounts, emphasizing reasonable investigation and evidence requirements

The Court directed the Respondents to de-freeze the petitioner's bank accounts immediately, finding the continued freezing unjustified after a prolonged investigation period without concrete evidence or legal basis. The Court emphasized the necessity of a reasonable investigation period, issuance of show cause notices, and a causal link between seized goods and alleged offenses before continuing to freeze bank accounts under the Customs Act, 1962. Costs were awarded to the Petitioner to be paid by the Respondents within four weeks.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to freezing of bank accounts under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged the Directorate Revenue Intelligence's action in continuing to freeze the petitioner's bank accounts under the Customs Act, 1962, based on alleged smuggling activities involving high-value computer parts.

2. The Respondents justified the freezing of bank accounts under Sections 110(3) and 121 of the Act, alleging the petitioner's involvement in exporting junk goods as high-value goods, leading to the seizure of bank accounts under Section 110(3) and potential confiscation under Section 121.

3. The petitioner argued that the freezing of bank accounts for over four years without a show cause notice, criminal case, or arrest was unjustified, especially after the return of seized goods following the quashing of preventive detention.

4. The Court analyzed Sections 110(3) and 121 of the Act, emphasizing the need for a reasonable investigation period, issuance of show cause notices, and a causal link between seized goods and alleged offenses before continuing to freeze bank accounts.

5. The Respondents admitted the prolonged investigation period but failed to provide a definite timeline for completion, leading the Court to deem the continued freezing of bank accounts unreasonable and unjustified.

6. Despite allegations of evading duties and dishonoring legal processes, the Court found no legal basis for the continued freezing of bank accounts, especially without concrete evidence or actions taken after four years of investigation.

7. Consequently, the Court directed the Respondents to de-freeze the petitioner's bank accounts immediately, allowing the writ petition with costs to be paid by the Respondents to the Petitioner within four weeks.

---