TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dge in two batches of writ petitions wherein the learned Single Judge though found the attachment of all bank accounts of the appellants, by the Director of Revenue Intelligence as on 30th June, 2010 was not justified in law nor supported in law, nevertheless directed the respondent to raise attachment by imposing condition to safeguard the interest of the respondent. Appellant was to furnish bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 2 crores put together, in respect of bank accounts, subject matter of two batches of writ petitions, as the writ petitioners' establishments are all owned by one individual, namely T. Devaraj. Learned Single has further permitted the appellants by way of an alternative condition, to offer security for the said sum. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cal.) - BHP (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. Director, DRI (4) Order dated 23-11-2010 of High Court of Judicature, Madras - M/s. Hansum India Electronics Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs. (5) 2010 (252) E.L.T. 512 (Del.) - Laxman Overseas v. Union of India. submits that all these decisions are an authority for the proposition that not only the DRI, but also the Customs officials cannot attach Bank account, but even assuming they have such powers, the attachment as of now becomes bad in law by not issuing show cause notice after lapse of more than an year from the date of attachment. 5. On the other hand learned Central Government Standing Counsel Sri Raviraj, for the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....need for interference in writ appeal and it is only due laxity on the part of the appellants in not giving details of bank accounts that is come in the way imposing condition against the remaining amount and not due to any default on the part of the respondent, therefore urges for dismissal of the writ appeals. 7. Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as under : 110. Seizure of goods, documents and things - (1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods : Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with or otherwise dea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any list of samples of drawn.] [(1C) Where an application is made under sub-section (1B), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.] (2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized : Provided that the aforesaid period of six months may, on sufficient cause being, shown, be extended by the [Commissioner of Customs] for a period not exceeding six months. (3) The proper officer may seize any documents or things which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued under Section 124 of the Act, there is no question of any duty liability being determined under the Act nor scope for levying any penalty nor even for passing an order for confiscation. 12. In the judgment of Delhi Court the proceedings initiated was after lapse of 4 years and therefore the Delhi High Court characterised it as not bona fide attachment and therefore directed lifting of attachment of all bank accounts. Only difference in the present case is that the bank accounts are under attachment for about two years, but without issue of a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act. Whether the period of inaction is for four or two years the question is one of the manner on which the statutory authority has exercised i....