ANIL KUMAR MAHENSARIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application the writ petitioner, an exporter, has challenged the authority of the respondent No. 3 to seize bank account opened by the petitioner for the purpose of realisation of drawback amount released by the customs authority.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he maintains a Current Account being Current Account number C.A - 000000066224 with respondent No. 4, the United Bank of India, Calcutta Branch (CD Customs Department) in which the customs authority releases the drawback amount payable to the petitioner. There is no dispute that such an account is opened by an exporter for the purpose of receiving drawback benefits and such account is called Custom Account. In such an account except monetary benefits received under drawback scheme, no other amount can be kept.

(3.) In this writ application, the writ petitioner has alleged that in respect of 9 different transactions mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ application, goods exported by the petitioners were duly received and accepted by the overseas buyers and there was no complaint from the overseas buyers with regard to those goods or transactions in any manner. It is further alleged that after receipt of the goods the overseas buyers had also paid the full consideration money to the petitioners as would appear from annexure 'P-3' to the writ application. It is further stated that in usual course of business the petitioner regularly approached the customs authority for release of duty drawback with regard to those transactions and after being fully satisfied with all documents furnished by the petitioner, the customs authority from time to time transferred various sums on different dates in the said bank account. However, the petitioner could not furnish full particulars. The petitioner's complaint is that on July 10, 2002 he came to learn from bank that the said bank account of the petitioner has been seized by the customs authority with effect from March 31, 2002 and as such, the petitioner was not allowed to operate the same. On 7th February, 2003 the petitioner made a representation before the respondent in writing through a learned Advocate with a request to forthwith withdraw the said illegal seizure but the respondent had not answered such representation. The petitioner thus prays for setting aside the order of seizure of the bank account.