2005 (10) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-8-2005 (Annexure "A"), the respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner that the cheques issued by the petitioner could not be cleared because of the direction issued by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Surat under the provisions of Section 110(3) read with Section 121 of the Customs Act (the Act). The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court and pointed out that, in light of the decision rendered in case of Raghuram Grah Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & Service Tax, 2005 (186) E.L.T. 50 (Allahabad), the bank account cannot be frozen by respondent authorities during pendency of investigation. 3. Upon issuance of notice, respondents have put in appearance. Mr. R.J. Oza, the learned Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he principal plank or which the case of the respondent authorities is built is Section 113(i) of the Act and Section 110(3) of the Act. None of the provisions support the action of the respondent authorities. Section 113 opens with "The following export goods shall be liable to confiscation". Clause (i) talks of "any goods entered for exportation". Therefore, on a plain reading of the provisions, it is apparent that the provisions can operate only at a stage which is prior to actual export of goods. This becomes very clear from reading of the other clauses of Section 113 of the Act. In the present case, it is not disputed that the goods were already exported in past and the petitioner is not seeking any order permitting clearance of goods f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....horities that the petitioner is either dealing in currency or is charged with illegally transacting in currency by way of import or export. Therefore, even this provision cannot support the action of respondent authorities. 7. Though Mr. Oza has addressed the Court in relation to various facts narrated in the affidavit in reply, it is not necessary to deal with the same at this stags, for the simple reason that the investigation which is in progress should not be affected by any observation or finding which the Court may record in relation to the facts and evidence which is in the stage of being ascertained, collated and brought on record. Therefore, without entering into any discussion on merits of the facts and evidence, suffice it to ....