2020 (7) TMI 186 - HC - Customs

Court orders refund claim decision, bank account de-freezing, and seized goods release under Criminal Procedure Code

M.C. Overseas Through Its Proprietor Sh. Manu Chopra & Anr. Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive & Anr.)

The court allowed the writ petition, directing the concerned authorities to decide on the refund claim within four weeks, even without all required ... Refund of deposit made by the petitioner - requirement of deposit of documents within the time bound schedule - HELD THAT:- The concerned respondent authorities are directed to decide the claim of refund of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order of this Court. If the documents as demanded from petitioners are not supplied, even then the respondents shall decide the claim of the refund in accordance with law. Defreezing of the Current Account of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- It is fairly submitted by the counsel for the respondents that they have already written a letter to the concerned bank for de-freezing the bank account. Thus, the grievance about the de-freezing of account does not survive. Release of the goods which were seized - HELD THAT:- It appears that there is some unlawful activity by unknown persons and an FIR has also been lodged against Mr. Ajit Singh. Thus, the matter is pending before the concerned Trial Court on criminal side in Delhi and therefore an application has to be preferred by the petitioners for the release of the goods in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Liberty is granted to the petitioners that upon proper presentation of the application under the Code of Criminal Procedure with proper averments, allegations and annexures for the release of the goods, the said application will be decided by the concerned Trial Court in accordance with law, rules and regulations and on the basis of the evidence on record. As and when the concerned Trial Court allows the release of the goods in favour of the petitioners, the respondents herein have no objection for the release of the goods in accordance with law - petition allowed. Issues:Refund of deposit, De-freezing of bank account, Release of seized goodsRefund of deposit:The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus for the refund of deposits made by them along with interest. The goods imported by the petitioner were seized due to alleged mis-declaration and undervaluation. A show cause notice was issued, leading to an Order-In-Original dated 31.12.2013, which was challenged before CESTAT. After several proceedings, CESTAT allowed the appeal of the petitioners on 23.12.2019. The petitioners approached the court seeking a refund of the deposited amounts. The court directed the concerned authorities to decide on the refund claim within four weeks, even if the required documents were not submitted by the petitioners.De-freezing of bank account:The petitioners requested the de-freezing of a specific bank account, which the respondents had already written to the bank about. The court noted that the grievance regarding the de-freezing of the account did not persist as the necessary steps had been taken by the respondents.Release of seized goods:The goods seized in 2012 were kept in the custody of the manager of the petitioner. Due to unlawful activities by unknown individuals, including the manager, the matter was pending before the Trial Court in Delhi. The petitioners were advised to file an application under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the release of the goods. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to file the application, and once the Trial Court approved the release, the respondents were directed to release the goods accordingly.In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, addressing the issues of refund of deposit, de-freezing of the bank account, and release of seized goods based on the specific circumstances and legal provisions applicable to each matter.