TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1016
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lders. 3. Under this scheme, the authorization holder can avail Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) in respect of cases where they have failed to complete the export obligation, on payment of the customs duties exempted and the scheme also exempts payment of interest on the Additional Customs Duty and the Special Additional Customs Duty. 4. Based on the information and the material verification, it was found that some of importers have fraudulently obtained closure letter from the DGFT under the Amnesty Scheme by fraudulent means and bribing officials. Action was taken conducting search of the suspected persons premises. In the course of the said search, it revealed that the entries in the EODC section register had also been forged with some unknown signatures, as though the Department officers had reconciled the documents and closed the cases finally on verification of documents for closure from the DGFT. 5. One Thiru.D.Manikandan, the representative of one of the suspected importer company revealed that he paid Rs. 50 lakhs as bribe to one Shri.Sandeep Kumar Chaurasia, Appraiser, Legal Section, Chennai-III Commissionerate, for forging letters to the DGFT to sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the Customs Department can exercise its powers only as per the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. The seizure of currency effected under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 to be necessarily comply with the timeline prescribed under Section 110(2) of Customs Act. Since no show cause notice been issued by the Customs Department either to Shri.Mittalal or to his son, Shri.Vikram Jain, within the stipulated period of six months prescribed under Section 110(2) of Customs Act, the cash seized under the seizure memo ordered to be refunded within the period of eight weeks. Nonetheless, the Learned Single Judge has granted liberty to the Department to initiate fresh action against the petitioner if the same deserves any merits in whatever manner as may deem it fit. 10. Challenging the said order, the present Intra-court Appeal is filed by the Department on the following grounds:- A. Impugned Order passed by the learned judge in W.P.No.10428 of 2025 dated 10.12.2025 is erroneous on facts, in law, and the weight of evidence is contrary to the statutory provisions and is opposed to the admitted facts of the case. B. The Learned Judge erred in law in holding that Indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not confined to corruption of public servant. F. The Learned Judge failed to give due weight to the voluntary statement of Shri Mittalal recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wherein he admitted his role in collecting cash on behalf of Shri Ramlal based on currency token identification linked to Hawala transactions. Statements under Section 108 are admissible and substantive evidence, and the same form the legal foundation for seizure under Section 110(3). G. The Hon'ble Court erred in exercising writ jurisdiction to quash the seizure memo and direct return of seized currency during the pendency of investigation, despite the settled principle that courts should not interfere in investigative processes unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction or mala fides, neither of which were established in the present case. H. The Hon'ble Court failed to consider that the seized mobile phone is subject to forensic examination, which is a crucial step in corroborating digital evidence, including chats, currency tokens, and linkages between the accused persons. Release of the seized items at this stage irreversibly compromises forensic integrity and e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rwarding the seized material for expert opinion will cause difficulty in retrieving the data. 12. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Department specifically contended that the investigation by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB), Chennai Preventive Wing had identified loss of revenue of about Rs. 5 crores. Out of which a sum of Rs. 1.66 crores been availed under the Amnesty Scheme by forging documents. The payment of Rs. 50 lakhs to Shri.Sandeep Kumar Chaurasia, Appraiser, Customs Department and the unaccounted cash of Rs. 21,55,000/- which believed to be part of Hawala transactions, need to be proved through electronic evidences and other materials, for which the material seized requires to be sent for forensic analysis and the unaccounted money cannot be summarily returned before completion of investigation. 13. Though the materials were seized pursuant to the powers conferred to the appropriate Officer under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962, the incriminating material collected does not fall within the ambit of Section 110(1) of Customs Act. There are enough materials available to proceed against the perpetrators of the crime for offence under the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch goods, the proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that the owner shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer. [see section 110(1)]. Sub- Section (2) of Section 110 says, if the seizure is under sub-section (1) of Section 110, the seized goods to be released if no notice under clause (a) of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 is given within a period of six months of seizure of the goods. The six months period can be extended by the Principal Commissioner of Customs for up to another period of six months after informing the person in writing, from whom the goods were seized, before the expiry of period so specified during the initial seizure. In contrast, we could see that under Section 110 (3) of the Customs Act, 1962 which deals with seizure of documents and 'things' relevant to any proceedings under the Customs Act 1962, is without any prescription of time limit. Unlike Section 110 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which is subject to sub-section (2), there is no specific time limit for issuance of show cause notice for seizure of documents or 'things' prescribed. On the ot....