ROHIT KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against alleged inaction of the respondents for not releasing drawback to the petitioner against the shipping bills in respect of export of the goods allegedly made during the period December, 2000 and January, 2001 and also for recalling and/or cancelling and/or withdrawing direction and/or order for seizure of the bank account of the petitioner with United Bank of India, Calcutta Main Branch.

(2.) Briefly stated fact of the case in the writ petition amongst other is that the petitioner pursuant to the various contracts from the overseas parties exported various items of materials, viz., Auto Gaskets, Tee -Shirts, Harness Reins, Bridle, Ball Point Pen and Refills during the period between December, 2000 and January, 2001. The factum of export is evidenced by the shipping bills annexed to the writ petition being Annexure "P -1". Immediate after export as above the petitioner applied for drawback under the Drawback Scheme framed by the respondent authority. According to the petitioner he became entitled to receive an aggregate sum of Rs. 1,19,14,858.25 from the respondents on account of drawback. The said exports were permitted to be made by the Customs authorities after they were satisfied with the particulars of the goods conforming to the description mentioned in the shipping bills. In spite of submission as above the respondent authorities, however, did not process or proceed with the application for release of drawback and the same has been illegally and wrongfully withheld from payment. Over and above without any informed reason the respondent authorities have seized the bank account of the petitioner maintained for this purpose with United Bank of India in its Calcutta Main Branch.

(3.) Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Banerjee learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Chowdhury learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the respondent authority has no power either expressly or otherwise to attach or seize the bank account. He contends that it can only be done in certain circumstances for recovery of Government dues from the defaulters under certain conditions of Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995. He also submits that the bank account can only be attached under Sec. 142 of the said Act which contemplates for recovery of sums due. At present admittedly there is no dues recoverable from the petitioner. He contends that neither of the aforesaid two provisions is applicable in this case.