Gujarat High Court
M/S Pacific Powertech Solutions vs Union Of India on 4 March, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 27/11/2024
Pronounced On : 04/03/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10754 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
M/S PACIFIC POWERTECH SOLUTIONS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DR SUJAY KANTAWALLA WITH MR ANUPAM DIGHE WITH MR KARTIKEY
D KANOJIYA(11031) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DEVANG VYAS ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL WITH MR
SIDDHARTH DAVE WITH MR CB GUPTA(1685) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Dr.Sujay Kantawalla
Page 1 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
with learned advocate Mr.Anupam Dighe with
learned advocate Mr.Kartikey D. Kanojiya for
the petitioner and learned Additional
Solicitor General Mr.Devang Vyas with learned
advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave with learned
advocate Mr.C.B. Gupta for the respondents.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned
advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave and learned
advocate Mr.C.B.Gupta waives service of notice
of rule for on behalf of the respective
respondents.
3. By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs :
“a. That this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to hold and declare thati. the investigation carried by the
Page 2 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
office of Respondent No.2 is not just
and fair and the conduct of the
Respondents against the Petitioner
herein in pursuance to
F.No.GEN/INT/MISC/26/2023, is
unwarranted and illegal;
ii. that the continuous provisional
attachment of the Petitioner’s Bank
Account No.6311621118 and
Petitioner’s Proprietor’s Bank
Account No. 7211434006 is without any
authority of law;
b. That this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or
Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or
Direction directing Respondents, their
servants, subordinates, and agents:
i. to withdraw Summons dated
07.06.2024 bearing F.No.
F.No.GEN/INT/MISC/26/2023 (Annexure
- C) and any subsequent Summons
issued to the Petitioner;
Page 3 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
ii. to refrain from issuing further
Summons to the Petitioner seeking
for documents related to M/s S.T.
Electricals;
iii. to defreeze the Petitioner’s
Bank Account No. 6311621118 and
Petitioner’s Proprietor’s Bank
Account No.7211434006 held with
Respondent No.4 bank;
c. That this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari
or Writ in the nature of Certiorari or
any other appropriate Writ, Order or
Direction calling for records and
proceedings dealing with Summons dated
07.06.2024 bearing F. No. F. No.
GEN/INT/MISC/26/2023 (Annexure- C) and
after going into the legality,
propriety and validity thereof, to
quash and set aside the same.
d. That this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to issue a Writ of ProhibitionPage 4 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
Direction, directing the Respondents
Nos. 2, and 3, their servants,
subordinates, and agents to cease and
desist from issuing further Summons to
the Petitioner in terms of
Investigation under F. No.
GEN/INT/MISC/26/2023;
e. Pending the hearing and final
disposal of the present Petition, this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the
Respondents:
i. to refrain from issuing further
Summons to the Petitioner seeking
documents related to M/s S.T.
Electricals;
ii. to defreeze the Petitioner’s
Bank Account No. 6311621118 and
Petitioner’s Proprietor’s Bank
Account No. 7211434006 held with
Respondent No. 4 bank;
iii. to refrain from taking any
Page 5 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
coercive steps against the
Petitioner in furtherance to
proceedings under F.
No.GEN/INT/MISC/26/2023;”
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this
petition can be summarised as under :
4.1. The petitioner is engaged in business
of trading of (Cold Rolled Grain Oriented)
CRGO Strips, Sheets, etc. During Financial
Year 2023-24, the petitioner made purchase and
sale transactions with one M/s. S. T.
Electricals for “CRGO Strips”.
4.2. The respondent No.2-Commissioner of
Customs (Prevantive), Jaipur initiated inquiry
against M/s. S. T. Electricals in respect to
an import made by it vide Bill of Entry
No.5525864 dated 15.04.2023.
Page 6 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
4.3. It is the case of the petitioner that
on 12.07.2023, the petitioner found that its
Bank Accounts having Bank Account
No.6311621118 and Bank Account No.7211434006
with Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited were put
under a “Debit Freeze” by the respondent No.4-
Kotak Mahindra Bank.
4.4. On inquiry, the petitioner was
informed that the said action was carried out
as per directions from the respondent No.2.
Thereafter, the respondent No.3-Superintendent
of Customs (Preventive), Jaipur issued summons
on 17.05.2024 to the proprietor of the
petitioner firm in view of the aforesaid
investigation seeking documents such as
purchase/sale documents in respect of M/s. S.
T. Electricals, books of accounts, ledger,
Page 7 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
Bank Accounts details and called upon the
petitioner to remain present to tender the
oral statement. Another summons dated
07.06.2024 was also issued upon the petitioner
seeking the same documents.
4.5. The petitioner thereafter, by letter
dated 14.06.2024 sent via Email dated
15.06.2024 addressed to the respondent No.3
raised objections against issuance of summons
contending that the respondent No.3 has no
jurisdiction to investigate the local
purchases made under appropriate invoice and
after due payment of local taxes by the
petitioner. The petitioner also requested to
withdraw the summons.
4.6. The petitioner thereafter, by Email
dated 21.06.2024 along with letter dated
Page 8 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
12.06.2024 (inadvertently dated as 12.06.2024
instead of 21.06.2024) submitted copies of
invoices and ledger in respect of M/s. S. T.
Electricals.
4.7. The petitioner has thereafter
preferred this petition.
4.8. Learned advocate Dr. Sujay Kantawalla
for the petitioner, at the time of hearing on
01.08.2024, submitted that the respondent
could not have continued the provisional
attachment of the Bank Accounts of the
petitioner after expiry of one year and relied
upon the instruction No.19/2024-Customs dated
22nd July, 2024 issued by the Central Board of
Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). Considering
such submissions, notice was issued upon the
respondent vide order dated 01.08.2024.
Page 9 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
4.9. In response to the notice issued on
01.08.2024, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed
affidavit-in-reply wherein, the following
averments were made :
“5. That, on the basis of an alert
received from the Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence, Gandhidham that certain
importers are importing sub-standard
Cold Rolled Grain Oriented (CRGO)
Strips/Coils and declaring them as BIS-
compliant by submitting false documents
that the CRGO Strips/coils pertain to
M/s. Thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel,
Germany (a BIS registered Global Firm),
the investigation was initiated in the
matter of goods, namely CRGO Strips (CTH
72261100) imported by M/s. S. T.
Electricals, G-58, RIICO Industrial
Area, Manda, Jaipur (IEC EDKPS784N),
vide Bill of Entry (BoE) No. 5525864
dated 15.04.2023. The importer had filed
subject Bill of Entry through CustomsPage 10 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
Broker Max Shipping Services at Port
ICD, CONCOR, Kanakpura, Jaipur. The
investigation revealed that M/s. S. T.
Electricals had been involved in import
of CRGO Steel Coils/Strips on the basis
of forged Mill Test Certificates, to
make these goods appear BIS -compliant.
Apart from Bill of Entry No.5525864
dated 15.04.2023, it has found that all
the past imports made by M/s. S. T.
Electricals were on the basis of
forged/fake Mill Test Certificates
submitted before the Customs Authorities
and mis-declaring the description of
goods for circumventing the
restriction / prohibition imposed on
sub-standard CRGO Steel of 1094.47 MT of
CRGO Electrical Steel Coils/Strips etc.
having assessable value of
Rs.13,86,47,042/- from ports situated
under the Jurisdiction of Commissioner
of Customs, Jodhpur Hqrs at Jaipur,
which also appeared grossly undervalued.
These sub-standard imported CRGO Steels
have been supplied by them to the
limited firms, mostly to the PetitionerPage 11 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
firm or sister concerns/related parties
to the Petitioner firm. It is also
revealed during the investigation that
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Mumbai had booked a case against the
Petitioner during FY 2018-2019 with
exactly similar modus operandi involving
similar suppliers and Sugrive Meena
Commissioner common beneficiaries.
Moreover, overseas suppliers M/s Recon
Metals GMBH-Germany, M/s MIKO Trading
GMBH-Germany, which are common in
present case, were also the suppliers in
the case of M/s Naravan Power Solution,
who dealt with the Petitioner to supply
sub-standard CRGO Steel along with
forged Mill Test Certificates.
6. That, the above facts, transactions,
purchase of substandard CRGO Steels from
M/s ST Electricals by the Petitioner
therefore require further investigation
which cannot be ascertained in absence
of oral evidences, therefore Summon
dated 17.05.2024 and 07.06.2024 under
Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962,Page 12 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
for submission of documents as well as
providing statement/Oral Evidences have
been issued to the Petitioner. The
Petitioner has not appeared in-person
before the investigating officer,
resultantly not complied with the
Summons. Instead of cooperating in the
investigation, the Petitioner has
approached this Hon’ble Court with clear
intent to avoid the investigation. The
petitioner, vide its letters, has itself
concluded the investigation, that he has
no role in the matter and summons issued
are unwarranted. The Petitioner has been
found to have deep business connections,
banking transactions, goods transactions
with Shri Sohan Lal Saran Proprietor of
M/s. ST Electricals, Jaipur and Mumbai
and role of the Petitioner is subject to
investigation, which is pending at the
level of the Investigating Officer. The
suomotu conclusion of the Petitioner
that he is nowhere involved in the case
and approaching to this Hon’ble Court is
mere attempt with ill intent to avoid
and delay the departmental investigationPage 13 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
and wasting precious time of the Hon’ble
Court as well as Department.”
4.10. Referring to the above averments,
reliance was also placed on Section 108 of the
Customs Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’) to
point out that the petitioner has not remained
present pursuant to the summons issued under
Section 108 of the Act. It was also contended
that M/s. S.T.Electricals had also preferred a
Writ Petition before Hon’ble Rajasthan High
Court and no stay is granted by Hon’ble
Rajasthan High Court on investigation to be
carried out by the respondent Nos.2 and 3
which is under progress. It was contended that
the investigation against the petitioner is
under progress and the petitioner is not co-
operating and Bank Accounts were provisionally
attached on 12.07.2023 under Section 110(5) of
the Customs Act,1962 (for short ‘the Act’) to
Page 14 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
safeguard the Government Revenue. It was also
contended that the petitioner never approached
the respondents for vacating the provisional
attachment but directly has preferred this
petition.
4.11. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the
said affidavit placing on record various
orders passed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court
in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.10480 of 2023
filed by M/s. S.T.Electricals to point out
that investigation in case of S.T.Electricals
is going on, however, respondent Nos.2 and 3
have no jurisdiction to carry the
investigation with respect to the goods
purchased by the petitioner from M/s.
S.T.Electricals as the petitioner has
purchased the goods from local market which is
alleged to have been imported by
Page 15 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
M/s.S.T.Electricals.
4.12. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 thereafter
filed additional affidavit-in-reply dated
27.08.2024 placing on record that in the
affidavit filed on 2nd August, 2024, it was
inadvertently mentioned about the
investigation by Director of Revenue
Intelligence, Mumbai and correct facts were
stated with an apology in paragraph No.2 which
is reproduced as under:
“2. That, it is to submit that it is
revealed during the Investigation that
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Mumbai had booked a case during FY
2018-2019 against Shri Narendra
Tarachand Purohit (Proprietor of M/s.
Shree Chamunda Enterprises) and others
with exactly similar modus operandi
involving similar suppliers. During
that investigation, Shri NarendraPage 16 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
Tarachand Purohit, Proprietor of M/s.
Shri Chamunda Enterprises had inter-
alia stated in his statement dated
21.02.2019, recorded under Section 108
of the Customs Act, 1962 that his
sister Rinku Purohit managed the
accounts i.e. sale and purchase of the
CRGO steel both in international and
domestic market, of all importing
companies being run by them; that his
brother-in-law Jagdish Purohit (who is
proprietor of the present Petitioner
M/s. Pacific Powertech Solutions)
looked after the sale of the imported
CRGO steel in local market. Therefore,
essence of submission of respondent was
that since petitioner has dealt with
such goods in similar modus in that
similar matter too. Moreover, the
concerned noticees of the said SCNs are
sister concerns/related parties to the
petitioner as well as are in common in
the present case. Annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE – R/1 is the copy of
Show Cause Notice F.NO. DRI/MZU/C/INT-
45/2019 dated 20.08.2019.”
Page 17 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
4.13. Thereafter, the matter was heard from
time to time. Learned Advocate Mr.Sujay
Kantawalla for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has purchased the goods from
the local market which is stated in the reply
filed by the petitioner pursuant to the
summons issued under Section 108 of the Act
and that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 lack the
jurisdiction to question or investigate local
purchases made against proper invoices and
after duly paying the local taxes. It was
further stated that the goods purchased by the
petitioner from M/s.S.T.Electricals were
further traded and sold under appropriate
invoices. It was submitted that the goods were
sold by the petitioner to one M/s.Mayur
Enterprises and similar show-cause notice was
issued as well as action was taken by the
Page 18 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
respondent Nos.2 and 3 in case of M/s.Mayur
Enterprises. M/s.Mayur Enterprises therefore
preferred Writ Petition (L) No.19554 of 2023
before the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High
Court by Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2023
allowed the petition on the same facts
wherein, it is observed as under :
“3. The petitioner, in the course of
his business, entered into an agreement
with one Pacific Powertech Solutions
(Pacific) for purchase of CRGO Strips.
The petitioner made market enquiries
and found that Pacific had purchased
the said goods from one GSD Technology,
who, in turn, had purchased the goods
from one M/s ST Electricals, who is the
actual importer of the goods. M/s ST
Electricals is located in Jaipur. The
petitioner purchased these goods from
Pacific under Invoice No. 043 dated 2-
7-2023, No. 044 dated 2-7-2023, No. 045
dated 3-7-2023 and No. 046 dated 5-7-
2023. The petitioner, in the course ofPage 19 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
his business, sold the above referred
goods, which were purchased from
Pacific to one Narayan Power Solutions
and one Transel Engineers over the
period of 4 July 2023 to 11 July 2023
under various invoices, which are
annexed to the petition. The petitioner
claims to be a bonafide purchaser of
the goods as originally imported by M/s
S. T. Electricals and cleared for home
consumption.
4. Meanwhile, the Customs Authorities
at Jaipur initiated proceedings against
M/s ST Electricals alleging
undervaluation of goods. M/s ST
Electricals has challenged the said
action of the authorities before the
Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petition
No. 10480 of 2023, which is stated to
be pending. The Customs Authorities,
during the investigation, found that
M/s ST Electricals had sold these goods
to GST Technology, who, in turn, has
sold to Pacific and Pacific has sold
goods to the petitioner and thePage 20 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
petitioner has further sold these goods
in the market.”
4.14. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid
order that the petitioner-M/s.Pacific
Powertech Solutions purchased goods from GST
Technology and sold the goods to M/s.Mayur
Enterprise.
4.15. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case
of M/s.Mayur Enterprise after considering the
submissions of the parties held as under:
“11. Submissions of the Petitioner: The
petitioner has contended that he has
not imported the goods and that he is a
bonafide purchaser in the chain of sale
and purchase transaction starting from
sale by M/s ST Electricals, who was the
original importer. The petitioner
submits that since he is not the
importer of the goods, the impugned
action cannot be initiated against him.
The petitioner has further contendedPage 21 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
that the goods, which were purchased by
him from Pacific, have been sold to
Narayan Power Solutions and another and
since therefore goods imported by the
M/s. ST Electricals are not in his
possession. Hence, there cannot be any
detention of the goods, which are not
the subject matter of original import
by M/s. ST Electricals so that there
could be a charge of non-payment of
duty or for that matter evasion of duty
by the petitioner. The petitioner has
further submitted that there is no
demand or show cause notice against him
and, therefore, the attachment of the
saving bank account and detention of
goods is also without jurisdiction. The
petitioner has, therefore, prayed that
the saving bank accounts be defreezed,
and the action of the respondents in
detaining of the goods and documents is
without jurisdiction.
12. Submissions of the respondents: Per
contra, the respondents have contended
that they have power to seize the goods
and documents under the provisions ofPage 22 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
Section 110(1) of the Act and under the
first proviso to Section 110(1) of the
Act since the said goods were
voluminous in nature, they have been
detained by the respondents and not
seized, as contended by the petitioner.
The respondents have further sought to
justify their action by relying upon
Sections 28, 110 (5) and 135 of the
Act. It is the case of the respondents
that they have power to detain the
goods, as the goods, which they have
detained, are of the same description
though not the same goods, which were
imported by M/S ST Electricals and,
therefore, the impugned action is
justified.
ANALYSIS
13. We may clarify that our present
analysis is restricted only to the
facts of the petitioner before us and
in no way should be construed as
expression of any views by us on any
other pending proceedings.
Page 23 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
14. At the outset, we wish to observe
that as per the affidavit of the
respondents dated 31 July 2023, the
goods, which were imported by M/s ST
Electricals, and which are subject
matter of investigation by the
Rajasthan authorities, are CRGO
Strips/Sheets, which are imported in
violation of BIS conditions. However,
as per the panchanama dated 26 July
2023, the goods detained are of the
description CRGO-Slit Coil and CRGO-
Steel Scrap. These two goods appear to
be not the same goods. In our prima
facie view, the affidavit-in-reply of
the respondents would militate against
the case of the respondents that the
goods, which are detained, are the
goods, which were originally imported
by M/s ST Electricals. The respondents
themselves admit in the reply that
goods purchased by the petitioner,
which were originally imported by M/s
ST Electricals, are already sold by the
petitioner. If that be so, then thePage 24 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
said goods cannot be of the ownership
of the petitioner. Therefore, the
respondents are not contending that
they have detained the same goods,
which were imported by M/s ST
Electricals, but are of similar
description which matches with purchase
invoice of the said similar description
goods. Thus, in our view, on such
admission by the respondents the
impugned action of detaining goods of
the petitioner, would be rendered
without jurisdiction.
15. In the context in question it is
necessary to note the relevant
provisions of the Customs Act.
16. Section 2(14) of the Act defines
“dutiable goods” to mean any goods,
which are chargeable to duty and on
which duty has not been paid. Section
2(15) defines “duty” to mean a duty of
customs leviable under the Customs Act.
Section 2(22) defines “goods” to
include vessels, aircrafts, vehicles,Page 25 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
stores, baggage, currency, negotiable
instruments and any other kind of
movable property. Section 2(25) defines
“imported goods” to mean any goods
brought into India from a place outside
India but does not include goods, which
have been cleared for home consumption.
Section 2(26) defines “importer” to
mean in relation to any good at any
time between their importation and the
time when they are cleared for home
consumption to include any owner,
beneficial owner or any person holding
himself out to be the importer. Section
2(34) of the Act defines “proper
officer” to mean the officer of
customs, who is assigned the functions
by the Board or the Principal
Commissioner of Customs and Customs or
Commissioner of Customs.
17. Section 28 of the Act provides for
recovery of duties not levied or not
paid or short levied or short paid.
Section 28(1) (a) provides that the
proper officer shall within the timePage 26 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
provided therein from the relevant date
serve a notice on the person chargeable
with the duty or interest, which has
not been so levied or paid or short
levied or short paid. Section 28-AAA
provides for recovery of duties in
certain cases and Section 28-BA
provides for provisional attachment to
protect revenue in certain cases, where
the proper officer is of the opinion
that for the purpose of protecting the
interest of revenue, it is necessary so
to do by order in writing attached
provisionally any property belonging to
the person on whom notice is served
under subsection (1) or sub-section (4)
of section 28 or sub-section (3) of
section 28-AAA or Sub-section (2) of
Section 28-B as the case may be.
18. Section 110 of the Act provides
for seizure of goods, documents and
things, if the proper officer has
reason to believe that any goods are
liable to confiscation under this Act.
Sub-section (3) of Section 110 providesPage 27 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
that the proper officer may seize any
documents or things which in his
opinion will be useful for or relevant
to any proceedings under this Act.
19. The analysis of the above
provisions of the Act would show that
once the goods are cleared for home
consumption and enter the domestic
market for sale, such goods cannot be
seized from the subsequent purchasers
and that too if the third person
against whom action is initiated has
already sold the goods in open market
and when there was no demand or
proceedings pending for recovery of
duty etc. against such third person. In
the present case, the goods imported by
M/s ST Electricals were initially
cleared for home consumption by the
said importer and the said goods have
changed hands in open market and is
also out of the possession of the
petitioner. The respondents in their
affidavit in reply have referred to the
communication from Jodhpur CustomsPage 28 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
authorities dated 8 July 2023 and 12
July 2023 wherein the Jodhpur
authorities have directed the
respondents to seize the very goods
imported by M/s ST Electricals. In the
said reply, the respondents have stated
that these very goods have been sold by
the petitioner to Narayan Power
Solutions. In our opinion, the
situation would have been different if
the Customs were to bring some
materials to show that the goods in
question were being allegedly dealt by
M/s. ST Electricals in connivance with
the petitioner or that the petitioner
was not a bonafide third party
purchaser. If this be the case, then
the action of detaining the goods of
the petitioner was contrary to the
revenues own stand and this would hold
good for attachment of the bank
account. Thus, in our view, on the
facts of the present case, the impugned
action in detaining the goods in
question (some other goods of the
petitioner) is contrary to thePage 29 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
provisions of the Act as noted by us
more so when same is not pursuant to
any recovery of pending dues of the
petitioner or proceedings pending
against the petitioner under the Act.
20. Section 28 of the Customs Act
relied by the respondents deals with
the recovery of duties not levied or
not paid or short levied or short paid
or erroneously refunded. We have
perused the provisions of Section 28 of
the Act. We wonder as to how this
provision which deals with recovery of
duties would empower the respondents to
justify the detention of the goods
under consideration and the attachment
of the bank account, would be
applicable in the present case. Section
28 nowhere provides for detention of
the goods and attachment of the bank
accounts more so in the absence of any
demand of any duty or penalty or any.
proceedings pending against the
petitioner. Therefore the reliance
placed by the respondents on thePage 30 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
provisions of Section 28, is
misconceived.
21. Section 110(1) of the Customs Act
also would not assist the case of the
respondents. The said provision
provides that if the proper officer has
reason to believe that any goods are
liable to confiscation under the Act,
he may seize such goods. Proviso to
Section 110(1) provides that where it
is not practicable to seize any such
goods, the proper officer may serve on
the owner of the goods an order that he
shall not remove, part with, or
otherwise deal with the goods except
with the previous permission of such
officer. There is no material to prima
facie show that the goods which are
detained as observed above by the
respondents are the very goods which
were imported by M/s ST Electricals and
which were purported to be in the
possession of the petitioner. Further
Section 110(5) of the Act empowers the
proper officer during any proceedingsPage 31 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
under the Act provision is attracted to
provisionally attach bank account to
protect the interest of revenue or to
prevent smuggling. We wonder as to how
this provision is attracted.
22. Even otherwise, on the facts of
the present case, the respondents have
not referred to any material or have
shown us any documents, as to how the
attachment of the petitioner’s bank
account is to protect the interest of
revenue or to prevent smuggling.
Therefore, on both these counts
attachment of the saving bank account
cannot be held to be legal and valid.
Further party purchaser of the goods in
question, this provision also may not
be applicable. the provision of Section
111 provides for confiscation of
improperly imported goods. Prima facie,
the petitioner being a third party
purchaser of the goods in question,
this provision also may not be
applicable.
Page 32 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
23. We may also observe that if the
case of the respondent is accepted,
that the department can detain any
goods in the hands of subsequent
purchaser of the goods who has
purchased them from the open market,
then it would lead to an anomalous and
chaotic situation. Illustratively,
where Mr. A who imports goods and sells
them to third parties which are subject
matter of various transactions leading
to Mr. Z who is a third party purchaser
from the open market, such goods cannot
be subject matter of any detention by
the Customs Authorities merely because
import of goods by Mr. A is being
investigated.
24. The respondents have also relied
upon the provisions of Section 135 to
justify their actions. Section 135
deals with evasion of duty and it
provides for prosecution, if any person
in relation to any goods in any way
knowingly is concerned with mis-
declaration of value or in anyPage 33 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
fraudulent evasion or attempt at
evasion of any duty chargeable thereon
or of any prohibition for the time
being imposed under this Act or any
other law for the time being in force
with respect to such goods; or acquires
possession of or is in any way
concerned in carrying, removing,
depositing, harboring, keeping,
concealing, selling or purchasing or in
any other manner dealing with such
goods which he knows or has reason to
believe are liable to confiscation
under section 111 or section 113, as
the case may be. In our view, this
provision would empower the respondents
to initiate criminal action against the
persons who are involved and satisfy
the pre-condition under sub-section (1)
of Section 135 of the Act. In the
present case there is no such action
which is under challenge or which is
initiated and therefore justification
sought to be made by the respondents of
the impugned action on this ground is
also without any authority of law.
Page 34 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
25. Further section 28 BA of the Act
provides for attachment of any property
of a person on whom notice under
sections 28(1), 28(4), 28-AAA(3) or 28B
(2) of the Act is served. In the
present case, the respondents have not
served notice/s under any of these
sections on the petitioner and
therefore even on this account the
respondents are not justified in
attaching bank account and detaining
the goods and documents.
26. The respondents have tried to
justify their action by stating that
they have acted upon communication from
the Authorities at Jaipur and they
themselves have not taken the action
independently but at the behest of the
Commissioner, Jaipur. The respondents
in the affidavit-in-reply had referred
to a communication from Jaipur
authority but same is not annexed to
the reply nor shown to us. We have not
been shown by the respondents any other
communication which supports theirPage 35 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
contentions that the action is taken at
the behest of the communication which
even otherwise the respondents could
not have acted upon without applying
their mind.
27. During the course of the hearing,
the respondents have contended that
they have not seized the goods but they
have only detained the goods. On a
query as to whether the department
would have the powers to detain the
goods in the facts of the present case,
we have not been pointed out any such
provision which would empower the
respondents in the facts of present
case, to detain the goods.
CONCLUSION
28. In view of above discussion, the
impugned action of the respondents in
detaining the goods in question and
attaching the bank account of the
petitioner without there being any
demand due from the petitioner or any
proceedings pending is without
jurisdiction and without any authority
Page 36 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
of law. Accordingly, we pass the
following order:
ORDER
(i) We declare that the detention of
the goods described in Table A of the
panchanama dated 26 July 2023 is
illegal and the same shall be revoked
on a copy of this order being
presented by the petitioner to the
concerned authority;
(ii) The respondents are directed to
return the documents which are
mentioned in Table-B of the
panchanama dated 26 July 2023;
(iii) The respondents shall defreeze
Savings Account No. 809510264 of the
petitioner held with Indian Bank and
intimate the communication of the
said defreezing to the bank;
(iv) Needless to observe that the
petitioner shall co-operate with thePage 37 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
respondents, in connection with
proceedings against M/s ST
Electricals is concerned;
(v) The petition is allowed in terms
of the above order. No order as to
costs.”
4.16. Thus, from the above, it is clear that
the goods in question have already been sold
and passed on to M/s.Mayur Enterprise and in
the case of M/s.Mayur Enterprise, the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court has directed the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 to defreeze the account of the
said firm and also directed the petitioner
before it to co-operate with the respondents.
Learned advocate Dr.Sujay Kantawalla
thereafter, tendered the draft amendment to
join Mr. Sugrive Meena as respondent No.5 who
in capacity of Commissioner of Customs
(Preventive) initiated the proceedings against
Page 38 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
the petitioner. The said draft amendment was
allowed by order dated 25th September, 2024
and notice was issued upon the newly joined
respondent No.5-Mr. Sugrive Meena in his
personal capacity.
4.17. It appears that thereafter, affidavit-
in-reply was filed by the respondent No.5
affirmed on 08.10.2024 justifying the action
taken by him against the petitioner along with
letter dated 08.10.2024 addressed to the Kotak
Mahindra Bank to defreeze the bank account of
the petitioner with immediate effect. The
petitioner has also filed a rejoinder
contending that the respondent No.5 has failed
to explain the assumption of jurisdiction to
initiate the investigation against the
petitioner for the goods imported by
M/s.S.T.Electricals considering that the goods
Page 39 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
purchased in local market are deemed to be
duty paid goods.
5.1. Learned advocate Dr. Sujay Kantawalla
therefore submitted that the grievance of the
petitioner regarding provisional attachment of
the Bank Account is now redressed in view of
the letter dated 08.10.2024 annexed with
affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent
No.5. It was submitted that however, the
grievance of the petitioner regarding
continuation of investigation by the
respondent-Authorities remains, as the
respondent-Authorities could not have
initiated the proceedings against the
petitioner vis-a-vis the goods in question
purchased by the petitioner which was
imported by M/s. S.T.Electricals, more
particularly, when the petitioner has
furnished all the relevant documents in
Page 40 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
response to the summons dated 12.07.2023.
5.2. It was further submitted that the
petitioner has already sold the goods to
M/s.Mayur Enterprise which is directed to co-
operate in the investigation as per the order
passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. It
was therefore submitted that the respondent-
Authority has continued the investigation only
with a view to harass the petitioner which is
also evident from the reply filed by the
respondent No.5 who has been joined in his
personal capacity.
5.3. It was submitted by learned advocate
Mr. Kantawalla that the basis of the
allegations made against the petitioner by the
respondent No.5 in the affidavit upon multiple
investigations is nothing but an attempt to
Page 41 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
mislead the Court and divert the attention
from primary issue of jurisdiction raised in
the petition. It was submitted that the goods
purchased by the petitioner was already
cleared for home consumption and therefore, it
ceases to be imported goods, more
particularly, when the petitioner has produced
the documents with the reply.
5.4. It was therefore submitted that the
respondent No.5 has issued the letter dated
08.10.2024 informing the respondent No.4-Bank
to unattach the bank account of the petitioner
clearly shows the malafide of the respondent,
as the bank accounts were ordered to be
unattached during the pendency of the
petition.
5.5. It was therefore submitted that the
Page 42 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
investigation initiated against the petitioner
are liable to be dropped and impugned summons
are required to be quashed and set aside in
the facts of the case.
6.1. Per contra, learned Additional
Solicitor General Mr.Devang Vyas for the
respondents submitted that the petitioner has
purchased the goods imported by
M/s.S.T.Electricals who has been found engaged
in the business of sub-standard CRGO Steel
strips which is confirmed to be bogus/forged
by overseas issuer of Mill Test Certificates
(for short ‘the MTCs’).
6.2. It was submitted that as per the
provisions of Section 2(33) of the Act which
defines ‘prohibited goods’ and Section 2(39)
which defines ‘smuggling’ read with Section
11A(a) of the Act which defines ‘illegal
Page 43 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
imports’ and 112(b) of the Act which
stipulates that any person who acquires
possession of or is in any way concerned in
carrying, removing, depositing, harboring,
etc., and in any other manner dealing with any
goods which he knows or has reason to believe
are liable to be confiscation under Section
111 of the Act shall be liable for penalty not
exceeding the value of the goods or five
thousand rupees, whichever is greater.
6.3. It was submitted that the petitioner
is the beneficiary of illegally imported
prohibited goods along with other purchasers
like M/s.Narayan Power Solutions, M/s.Chamunda
Enterprise, M/s.Mayur Enterprise who have
formed a nexus by whom M/s.S.T.Electricals is
being operated and managed for illegal imports
of such sub-standard CRGO Steel and therefore,
the petitioner is defacto importer being the
Page 44 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
beneficiary of such goods.
6.4. It was submitted that import of CRGO
are to be complied with Steel and Steel
Products (Quality Control) Order, 2020 dated
22.07.2020 of Ministry of Steels and
Instruction dated 09.07.2024 issued by CBIC
stipulating the norms and BIS compliances for
such imports and non-compliance of such
guidelines and importing goods on the basis of
the forged documents is liable to be
classified as prohibited goods as per the
provisions of Section 2(33) of the Act.
6.5. It was further submitted that as per
Section 135 of the Act, CRGO goods purchased
by the petitioner which was imported by
M/s.S.T.Electricals on the basis of the forged
MTCs didn’t bear BIS Marks and therefore, not
Page 45 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
only importing but also selling and
distribution of such goods by importer as well
as its beneficiaries would be liable for penal
action under the provisions of the Act.
6.6. It was therefore submitted that the
goods purchased by the petitioner from M/s.
S.T.Electricals are prohibited and are
illegally imported and hence, liable for
confiscation under Section 111(d), (m) and (o)
of the Act.
6.7. Learned Additional Solicitor General
Mr.Devang Vyas along with learned advocate
Mr.Siddharth Dave explained in detail the
modus operandi of M/s.S.T.Electricals and
others including the petitioner by referring
to the bill of entries filed by
M/s.S.T.Electricals for import of such goods
Page 46 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
to show that the petitioner has transferred
the amount prior to purchase of the goods to
pay the duty by M/s.S.T.Electricals. It was
therefore submitted that M/s.S.T.Electricals
is nothing but a conduit to import the goods
by the petitioner so as to avoid the further
investigation by the customs.
6.8. It was further pointed out that the
goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.5525864
was uploaded on the route and sold to M/s.GSD
Technology, Mumbai who in turn shifted the
goods to the petitioner at Vapi and petitioner
sold the goods to M/s.Mayur Enterprise at
Maharasthra with a same truck number without
unloading of the goods. It was therefore tried
to be demonstrated that on analysis of
movement of vehicles for goods imported by
M/s.S.T.Electricals which are prohibited
Page 47 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
goods, the petitioner is a beneficiary of
import of such prohibited goods and had funded
M/s.S.T.Electricals for payment of duty amount
as well as the logistic expenses and funds
have been transferred to the family members of
the proprietors of the beneficiary firms to
the bank accounts of M/s. S.T.Electricals.
6.9. It was therefore submitted that
investigation is required to be made by the
respondents under Section 108 read with
Section 112 of the Act. Learned Additional
Solicitor General Mr.Devang Vyas has placed on
record the copy of the record of the
investigation carried out by the respondents
to demonstrate that the petitioner is one of
the beneficiaries of the import of the
prohibited goods.
Page 48 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
6.10. In support of his submissions,
reliance was placed on the decision of this
Court in case of Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia
versus Union of India through Secretary
rendered on 27th April, 2022 in Special Civil
Application No.4820 of 2022 to submit that
this Writ Petition should not be entertained
by this Court as the petitioner ought to have
preferred the petition before the Rajasthan
High Court as the respondent No.2 is situated
at Jaipur. It was submitted that the
adjudication order shall be passed by the
respondent No.2 at Jaipur and therefore, this
Court should not entertain the petition and
the petitioner should be relegated to file
appropriate Writ Application before the
Rajasthan High Court.
6.11. It was submitted that only because the
correspondence was addressed to the Office of
Page 49 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
the petitioner situated at Vapi, it cannot be
termed as small fraction of a cause of action
having occurred within jurisdiction of this
Court as the show-cause notice and all other
investigation is carried out at Rajasthan. It
was further submitted that no cause of action
can be said to have arisen within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court merely
because the show-cause notice issued by the
respondent No.2 is served upon the petitioner
at Vapi.
6.12. Reliance was also placed on the
decision in case of Anwesha Engineering and
Projects Limited Versus Indian Oil Corporation
Limited rendered on 21.10.2020 in Special
Civil Application No.8629 of 2020 in support
of these submissions.
6.13. Reliance was also placed on the
Page 50 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
decision of Madrash High Court in case of K.
Elumalai versus The Commissioner of Customs
decided on 04.07.2017 in W.P.No.6650 of 2017
and W.M.P.No.7159 of 2017 reported in 2017 355
ELT 241 (Madras), wherein, it was held that in
view of Sub-section (3) of Section 108 of the
Act, all persons summoned are required to
attend either in person or by an authorized
agent before the Officer and therefore, the
petitioner ought to have appeared pursuant to
the summons in person before the respondent
No.2 and therefore the prayer made by the
petitioner to quash the summons cannot be
entertained in view of the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Commissioner of
Customs, Culcutta & Others versus M.M.Exports
& Another reported in (2007) 212 ELT 165
wherein, it was held that High Court should
not interfere at the stage when the Department
Page 51 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
has issued summons except in exceptional
cases.
6.14. It was therefore submitted that the
language of Sub-section (3) of Section 108 of
the Act is very clear that if the Officer
directs the petitioner to appear in person,
the petitioner is bound to appear in person or
through authorised agent if such option is
given. It was therefore submitted that in view
of the order of release of the provisional
attachment, the petition has become
infructuous and may be rejected as the summons
issued by the respondent No.2 cannot be
quashed and set aside as the investigation
initiated by the respondent No.5 is just and
proper in view of the facts which have come on
record before the Court.
6.15 As far as the territorial jurisdiction
Page 52 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
of this Court is concerned, the contentions of
the learned ASG need to be rejected on the
following grounds :
A) It is an admitted position that the
petitioner is a resident within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court and it
is at such place that the petitioner has
received the summons which is under challenge
herein. Therefore, the primary test of
territorial jurisdiction of “part of the cause
of action” is definitely met in the
circumstances.
B) In the judgment dated 08.08.2023 of
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, it will be
seen that Mayur had knocked the doors of the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court. This Court could
not discern where and in what manner the
respondent had challenged the jurisdiction of
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of
Mayur. In any case, had they been agrieved by
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court exercising
jurisidcition, the respondents ought to have
challenged the said decision dated 08.08.2023
before the Appellate Forum. As noted elsewherePage 53 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
in this judgment, the respondents have
accepted the judgment dated 08.08.2023,
thereby failing to dispute the exercise of
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court
in the case of Mayur. Therefore, the stand
taken in the case of the petitioner, which is
similarly situated that the petitioner ought
to have approached the Hon’ble High Court at
Rajasthan is without any basis whatsoever and
must be rejected.
Therefore, we are of the considered
opinion that this Court has the territorial
jurisdiction in the present case.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and considering the facts
of the case, it appears that the petitioner
has purchased the CRGO strips imported by
M/s.S.T.Electricals who had imported such
goods which are alleged to be prohibited
goods. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have carried out
the investigation against M/s.S.T.Electricals
Page 54 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
and in turn, against the petitioner and
M/s.Mayur Enterprise to whom such goods have
been passed on by purchase and sale.
8. The respondent No.5, who was joined in his
personal capacity, has filed an affidavit
instead of remaining present either in person
or through authorised person in response to
the notice issued by this Court reiterating
what is stated in the affidavit which was
filed earlier by him in his official capacity.
The affidavit filed by the respondent No.5
affirmed on 08.10.2024 refers to the modus
operandi of M/s.S.T.Electricals and the past
imports made by M/s.S.T.Electricals of CRGO
Strips which were found to be on the basis of
forged/fake MTC submitted before the Customs
Authority and mis-declaring the description of
the goods for circumventing the
restriction/prohibition imposed on sub-
Page 55 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
standard CRGO Steel strips and it was tried to
contend that the petitioner being one of the
beneficiaries, summons were issued as
purchase of sub-standards CRGO Strips by the
petitioner requires further investigation
which cannot be ascertained in absence of
statements.
9. It was contended by respondent No.5 that
the petitioner has approached the Court with
an intention to avoid the investigation. It
was pointed out that the petitioner has been
found to have deep business connections,
banking transactions, goods transaction with
Shri Sohan Lal Sharan, proprietor of
M/s.S.T.Electricals, Jaipur and Mumbai and
therefore, the role of the petitioner is
subject to investigation.
Page 56 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
10. It was also contended that the petitioner
cannot therefore claim any innocence to have
purchased the goods from local market.
Referring to the provisions of Section 108 of
the Act, it was contended by the respondent
No.5 that the petitioner is bound to respond
to the summons issued under the said
provisions and appear in person before the
respondent No.2.
11. It was also contended by respondent No.5
that the petitioner has purchased the subject
goods from M/s.S.T.Electricals amounting to
Rs.3,28,78,942/- which were undervalued and
therefore, the Bank Accounts were
provisionally attached which are now released
in view of the provisions of Section 110(5) of
the Act as the Bank Accounts attached
provisionally are deemed to be defreezed after
six months from the date of attachment as no
Page 57 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
further extension was given by the competent
authority. It was further contended that the
role of the petitioner in the impugned
transaction of import is subject to
investigation and under his jurisdiction. It
was also contended that the petitioner has
joined the respondent No.5 only with a view to
demoralise the Government Officers subordinate
to him, who are investigating the case against
the petitioner and M/s.S.T.Electricals.
12. From the tenor of the affidavit, it is
clear that the respondent No.5, instead of
responding to the notice of this Court and
appearing before the Court, has filed the
affidavit-in-reply reiterating what is stated
earlier in the affidavits filed before this
Court with an additional fact that the
accounts of the petitioner have been defreezed
under Section 110(5) of the Act.
Page 58 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
13. The petitioner in reply to the summons has
already furnished all the relevant documents
and based upon such documents, respondents
have not further issued any summons meaning
thereby that, in the documents furnished by
the petitioner in form of the purchase
register, ledger, bank accounts etc., the
respondent No.2 could not find any
irregularities so far as the petitioner is
concerned. Thus, it is clear that the
petitioner has co-operated with the summons
issued by the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
14. It also appears from the investigation
carried out by the respondent No.5, who is
investigating in capacity of Commissioner of
Customs (Preventive) (respondent No.2), that
the import made by M/s.S.T.Electricals is
subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition
Page 59 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
filed before the Rajasthan High Court. Thus,
the respondent No.5 in capacity of respondent
No.2 has exceeded his jurisdiction insisting
upon the personal presence of the proprietor
of the petitioner firm for the reasons best
known to him without there being anything on
record which requires further investigation
qua the petitioner, more particularly, when
the petitioner has sold the goods imported by
M/s.S.T.Electricals to M/s.Mayur Enterprise,
which is duly recorded in the judgment and
order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court
as reproduced hereinabove.
15. Therefore, it is very clear that the
respondent No.2/5, only with an ulterior
motive, is trying to harass the petitioner
under the guise of exercising its powers under
Section 108 of the Act. It is pertinent to
note that in spite of issuance of notice of
Page 60 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
this Court, the respondent No.5 has not
remained present in person or through
authorised person and has tendered the
affidavit through the learned advocates for
the respondent-Authorities. When this Court
has joined the respondent No.5 in his personal
capacity, it was incumbent for him to appear
and make submissions qua the allegations
levelled against him by the petitioner instead
of filing an affidavit in reply through the
advocate appearing for the Customs Department.
16. We have been given a complete set of
photocopies of original file containing the
notes of the department from Note No.1 dated
26.04.2023 till Note No.377 dated 22.11.2024.
Note No.87 dated 11.07.2023 reads as under:
“Note # 87 Kindly peruse letter
10.07.2023 received from M/s. S. T.
Electricals (placed opposite) whereinPage 61 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
the party has registered protest
against the provisional attachment of
thier bank accounts.
Further, as per letter dated
06.07.2023, the importer has sold the
goods to M/s. GSD Technologies, Mumbai
vide Invoice No. 18 dated 30.06.2023,
19, 20 & 21 dated 01.07.2023. Further
on examination it has come to notice
that M/s. GSD Technologies Mumbai has
further sold goods to M/s. Pacific
Powertech Solutions, Vapi, Gujrat
under E-way Bill No. (i) 231612745502
dated 01.07.2023, (ii) 281612540928
dated 30.06.2023, (iii) 251612918212
dated 01.07.2023 & (iv) 281612913500
dated 01.07.2023.
M/s. Pacific Powertech Solutions,
Vapi, Gujrat has further sold the
goods to M/s. Mayur Enterprises,
Kalamboli (Maharasthra) vide E-way
Bill No. (i) 601583371095 dated
02.07.2023 (ii) 641583408928 dated
02.07.2023 (iii) 631583640444 dated
03.07.2023 & (iv) 615584305900 dated
05.07.2023.
Further, on checking with the system,
it is noticed that M/s. Mayur
Enterprises has generated the e-way
Bills as detailed below:
EWB No. From GSTIN & To GSTIN From Place & To Place & Pin EWB No. & Dt.
Name & Name Pin
231614130722 27AOAPP2471C1Z 27CYOPP KALAMBOLI/ Rabale MIDC, 231614130722-
8/ MAYUR 7727H1Z 410218 Navi 04/07/2023
ENTERPRISES P/ Mumbai/400701 22:12:00
NARAYAN
Page 62 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
POWER
SOLUTIO
NS
261614132066 27AOAPP2471C1Z 27CYOPP KALAMBOLI/ Rabale MIDC, 261614132066-
8/ MAYUR 7727H1Z 410218 Navi 04/07/2023
ENTERPRISES P/ Mumbai/400701 22:17:00
NARAYAN
POWER
SOLUTIO
NS
221614296133 27AOAPP2471C1Z 27AAECR KALAMBOLI/ RABALE NAVI 221614296133-
8/ MAYUR 5971L1ZS 410218 MUMBAI/ 400701 05/07/2023
ENTERPRISES / 12:17:00
RASQUIN
HA
TRANSC
ORE
ELECTRI
CALS
PVT LTD
221614639565 27AOAPP2471C1Z 27CYOPP KALAMBOLI/ Rabale MIDC, 221614639565-
8/ MAYUR 7727H1Z 410218 Navi 05/07/2023
ENTERPRISES P/ Mumbai/400701 21:00:00
NARAYAN
POWER
SOLUTIO
NS
231616276602 27AOAPP2471C1Z 27CYOPP KALAMBOLI/ Rabale MIDC, 231616276602-
8 / MAYUR 7727H1Z 410218 Navi 09/07/2023
ENTERPRISES P/ Mumbai/400701 20:27:00
NARAYAN
POWER
SOLUTIO
NS
271616194942 27AOAPP2471C1Z 27CYOPP KALAMBOLI/ Rabale MIDC, 271616194942-
8 / MAYUR 7727H1Z 410218 Navi 09/07/23
ENTERPRISES P/ Mumbai/400701 13:22:00
NARAYAN
POWER
SOLUTIO
NS
271616536409 27AOAPP2471C1Z 27AATFT KALAMBOLI/ Tata 271616536409
8 / MAYUR 5852A1Z 410218 Talav/412108 10/07/23
ENTERPRISES W/ 15:36:00
TRANSEL
ENGINEE
RS
“Although it is possible that the
goods consigned by M/s. Mayur
Enterprises are the same which were
imported by M/s. S T Electricals vide
Be No. 5525864 dated 15.04.2023,Page 63 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
however without enquiry it is not
possible to ensure that these are the
same goods which have been
purchased/received from M/s. Pacific
Powertech Solutions.
Further, as per direction, bank
account details of the following firms
have been obtained and the same are as
under :-
1. M/s. GSD Technologies Mumbai – Bank
Name : Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. – A/c
No. :2414037894
2. M/s. Pacific Powertech Solutions –
Bank Name: Kotak Mahindra Bank- A/c
No. : 6311621118
3. M/s. Mayur Enterprises – Bank Name
: Indian Bank-A/c No.6010527667.”
Thus the primary allegation of importing
the goods are on ST Electricals and the role
of the petitioner is confined only to that of
a seller.
Note No.138 dated 01.09.2023 is also of
great significance because by way of the said
note, the orders of Hon’ble Bombay High Court
Page 64 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
dated 25.07.2023 and 08.08.2023 have been
clearly noted. Subsequently from the Notes, it
is seen that the issue of filing an appeal
against the order dated 08.08.2023 of Hon’ble
Bombay High Court has been discussed but no
appeal has been filed against the same and
therefore, the order dated 08.08.2023 of the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court has become final.
The aforesaid notes are also conspicuous in
their absence with regard to the
implementation of the Hon’ble Bombay High
Court’s decision dated 08.08.2023 to the case
of the petitioner and inspite of the fact that
the department has been chastized by the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court, it seems to have
singularly gone after the petitioners,
although, admittedly as discussed here in
above, the department was of the clear view
that the petitioners were at-least one step
Page 65 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
removed from the actual alleged perpetrators
in the eyes of department namely ST
Electricals and Mayur. Inspite of the same,
the respondent no.5 due to the reasons best
known to him has continued to harass the
petitioner and the reasons for the same or any
plausible explanation for the same, have not
been forthcoming from respondent no.5.
17. The respondent No.5 has thus acted in
total disregard to the notice issued by this
court by tendering affidavit only similarly as
that of the petitioner filing reply in
response to the summons issued under Section
108 of the Act. However, notice issued by this
Court against the respondent No.5, while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India, is having wider
implication than summons issued under Section
Page 66 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
108 of the Act and respondent No.5 has ignored
the notice by tendering the affidavit-in-reply
instead of appearing in person or through
authorised person or an advocate.
18. Be that as it may, in the facts of the
case when the petitioner has filed the
detailed reply in response to the summons
issued under Section 108 of the Act, no
further purpose would be served to continue
the investigation qua the petitioner by the
respondent-Authorities.
19. In view of the foregoing reasons, the
petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed.
The summons dated 12.07.2023 are duly complied
with and the respondents are therefore
restrained from issuing the further summons to
the petitioner in respect of the transaction
in question/import of goods by
Page 67 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10754/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2025
undefined
M/s.S.T.Electricals qua Bill of Entry
No.5525864 dated 15.04.2023 which was
purchased by the petitioner from local seller
and in turn sold to M/s.Mayur Enterprise. Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No
orders as to cost.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(D.N.RAY,J)
PALAK BRAHMBHATT
Page 68 of 68
Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Wed Mar 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 05 22:06:25 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link