TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1612
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereafter 'DRI') freezing her current account no. 307301010294199 maintained with respondent no.2 (Union Bank of India's Branch located at Fatehpuri, Khari Baoli, Delhi - hereafter 'UBI'). By the letter dated 19.03.2014 (hereafter 'the impugned communication'), the DRI had called upon UBI to not to permit any debit/withdrawal from the petitioner's account till further communication. It is stated that the same was in connection with investigation of an "alleged export fraud case". UBI complied with the aforesaid request and informed the petitioner of the same by a letter dated 12.01.2015. 2. The principal controversy involved in the present case is whether the impugned communication is lawful. The petitioner alleges that the impugned comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n his statement, Gopal Sharma had admitted that he had opened bank accounts of seven concerns with UBI including the bank account of the petitioner and he also operated the said accounts by obtaining signatures of the account holders as and when necessary. 5. It is stated that summons were also issued to Smt. Deepa, the proprietor of R.K. Impex; however, she did not appear before the concerned officer. The DRI further states that the investigations had revealed that the firms operated by Sh. Gopal Sharma had remitted funds into the accounts of various other entities, which were dealing in diamonds and were booked for sending foreign exchanges on the basis of forged bills of entry to several entities outside India. These entities had in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... five exporting firms - namely, M/s Konark Exim Pvt. Ltd., M/s G.D. Mangalam Exim Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sidh Designers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Yogmaya Traders Pvt. Ltd. and M/s DSM International - calling upon the noticees to, inter alia, show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed. Concededly, the petitioner is not one of the noticees. However, Mr Aggarwal contended that Sh Gopal Sharma was a controller of seven domestic firms including the petitioner and he has been arrayed as a noticee. 9. A plain reading of the show cause notice - a copy of which was handed over to the Court during the course of the arguments - indicates that Sh Gopal Sharma has been called upon to show cause as to why penalty under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....officer of customs specially empowered by name in this behalf by the Board, has reason to believe that any goods liable to confiscation, or any documents or things which in his opinion will be useful for or relevant to any proceeding under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorise any officer of customs to search or may himself search for such goods, documents or things. (2) The provisions of the 145 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), relating to searches shall, so far as may be, apply to searches under this section subject to the modification that sub-section (5) of section 165 of the said Code shall have effect as if the word "Magistrate", wherever it occurs, the words Commissioner of Customs were substitut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of the Magistrate, photographs of such goods, and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such goods,in the presence of the Magistrate, and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the belief that the said currency was liable for confiscation as it represented sale proceeds of smuggled goods. In the aforesaid context, the principal controversy before the Court was whether misdeclaration of the description and value of the goods in question would constitute "smuggling". The High Court had directed unconditional release of cash. However, the Supreme Court was, prima facie, of the view that before adjudication, the High Court ought not to have granted unconditional release and, therefore, directed release of the seized currency against a bank guarantee. In the present case, concededly, the impugned communication has not been passed under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Further, any seizure under Section 110 of the Cu....