2025 (9) TMI 1353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner challenges the attachment orders involving his bank account and his factory building, which, the Petitioner claims, he came to know only in May 2025, when the bank account was actually frozen. Ms Tanna, on instructions, states that the bank account was frozen on 19 May 2025. 4. Ms Tanna referred to the provisions in Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 ("said Act") to submit that the attachment could have been effected only if the amount allegedly due from the Petitioner could not have been recovered in the manner provided in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 142(1). She submitted that in this case, the detained goods, i.e. photocopy machines, were detained by the Customs Authorities and wer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the Petitioner based upon an untenable contention or, in any event, a grossly hyper-technical objection to defeat the rights of the Revenue. He pointed out that pursuant to the notice dated 28 February 2017, the Customs Authorities managed to recover an amount of Rs. 2.50 lakhs in June and July 2025 from the Petitioner's bank account. 8. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 9. At this stage, the issue of the Petitioner's liability has attained finality. No doubt, the Petitioner took out several proceedings, but ultimately, this Court confirmed the Petitioner's liability to pay the customs dues. At one stage, the Petitioner, to wriggle out of the liability, even went to the extent of denouncing its title on the att....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is well settled that this jurisdiction is both equitable and discretionary. This jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked as a matter of right, except in some instances involving personal liberty. The Petitioner's case does not fall within any of the exceptions. 13. Therefore, based upon the legal point quite ably made by Ms Tanna, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the attachment orders, particularly where there is substantial compliance and further, at this stage, the Petitioner cannot dispute their liability to pay the customs dues. As noted earlier, the determination of such liability has attained finality. 14. Ms Tanna submitted that the Petitioner has already paid a penalty of Rs. 1 l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... formal order revoking the attachment, and such formal orders must be issued by 31 December 2025, at the latest, or within 10 days of the Petitioner paying the amount of Rs. 23.50 lakhs. 18. Upon payment of the amount of Rs. 23.50 lakhs, it will be open to the Petitioner to apply to the Customs Authorities for the release of the photocopy machines in whatever state they are. If such an application is made, we are sure that the Customs Authorities will be happy to return such machines to the Petitioner within 15 days of the receipt of such a request. Suppose the Petitioner makes no such application within 15 days of the payment of Rs. 23.50 lakhs. In that case, it shall no longer be the responsibility of the Customs Authorities to return ....