VIKAS GUMBER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a sole proprietor of M/s. Happy Overseas, which is a firm stated to be engaged in the business of export of readymade garments. According to the petitioner he has been exporting garments since October, 2006. The petitioner does not manufacture readymade garments but procures the same from open market by placing orders with the manufacturers/traders for export purposes. It is also the case of the petitioner that readymade garments are supplied to the petitioner by traders/manufacturers under regular bills for which payments are made by the petitioner through cheque(s)/pay order(s)/draft(s). The petitioner has been receiving drawback amount which is an export incentive for the export of the readymade garments. The amounts of drawback after sanction are credited to the bank account of the petitioner and he has been withdrawing the same from time to time. On 15.7.2007 the customs authorities in order to verify the description, quantity or the value of the goods exported by the petitioner detained five export consignments of the petitioner but after examining the same allowed the export by granting "Let Export" order. On 19.7.2007 another consignment was detained, however, later on the customs authorities allowed the petitioner to export the shipment provisionally, subject to market verification of the price of the goods. On 27.7.2007 the customs authorities searched the business premises of the petitioner and seized certain papers and documents purportedly for investigation and also recorded the statement of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter furnished information and documents as has been called by the customs authorities in compliance with the summons issued.

(2.) IT is not disputed that till date no show cause notice or any other communication informing the petitioner of any violation has been issued to him. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 1.8.2007, the respondents issued direction to the Manager, Punjab National Bank, New Customs House to freeze the bank account of the petitioner maintained with that bank and, thereafter, petitioner has not been allowed any withdrawal.

(3.) THE petition is opposed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that there is no infringement of any fundamental right of the petitioner and the Constitution empowers the Government to impose reasonable restriction on the rights of the petitioner. He further submits that the action of the respondent is neither arbitrary. In support of his submission he relies on Section 110 (3) of the Customs Act, which is reproduced below :