TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Adjudication Order: Rejection of Values, Refund Directive, Property Release, Bank Guarantee Condition</h1> <h3>M/s. Masumi Overseas Pvt Ltd & Anr. Versus Commissioner of Customs-Export (NS-II) & Ors.</h3> M/s. Masumi Overseas Pvt Ltd & Anr. Versus Commissioner of Customs-Export (NS-II) & Ors. - 2019 (365) E.L.T. 491 (Bom.) Issues:1. Prohibitory order on director's residential property2. Freezing of six bank accounts3. Retention of deposited amount by the petitionerProhibitory Order on Director's Residential Property:The petitioner's grievance pertains to the action of the authorities in passing a prohibitory order concerning the director's residential property. This action was taken in relation to export consignments of 'Gas Injected Co-Axial Cable' made by the petitioner. The department halted the export and undertook steps like addressing the Sub-Registrar not to alienate the property, freezing bank accounts, and retaining a sum of Rs. 1.50 crores. The department issued a show-cause notice regarding the valuation of the consignments, drawback claims, and confiscation of goods. The final order by the Adjudicating Authority rejected the declared values, reduced the drawback claims, and confiscated the goods without offering redemption. However, no monetary demand was raised against the petitioner in the order.Freezing of Six Bank Accounts:The department froze six bank accounts of the petitioner as part of the investigation into the export consignments. The Adjudicating Authority's order reduced the drawback claim based on the revised valuation of the consignments. The petitioner argued that no monetary demand was raised against them in the order. The High Court noted that no further material was presented by the department to suggest a likelihood of recovery demand from the petitioner. As such, the court directed the rescinding of the prohibitory orders on the director's property and the attachment of bank accounts.Retention of Deposited Amount:The petitioner had deposited Rs. 1.50 crores with the department, claiming it was done under protest. However, the department presented a letter where the petitioner stated the deposit was voluntary. The court held that unless a legal demand crystallizes against the petitioner, the department cannot appropriate the deposited amount. As no demand was raised, the court directed the respondents to refund the amount to the petitioner, with a condition of providing a matching bank guarantee to safeguard the department's interests in case of future demands. The court disposed of the petition with specific directions regarding the refund and bank guarantee.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the prohibitory order, freezing of bank accounts, and retention of the deposited amount, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and the court's decision.
TaxTMI 