Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1923
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH, JJ
Mundhra Exim Pvt Ltd Represented By Its Director Mr Ashish Mundhra – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
WP 874/2025
Important Points
Subject
Customs Law - Provisional Attachment
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Jurisdiction - The court held that provisional attachment under Section 110(5) cannot occur without pending proceedings, which require a show cause notice to be issued under Sections 28, 28AAA, or 28B - The absence of such notice means the attachment is unlawful. (Paras 17, 22)
(C) Alternative Remedy - The court ruled that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the writ petition when the action is without jurisdiction or violates natural justice principles. (Paras 11, 19)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, importers of edible goods, had their bank accounts provisionally attached due to allegations of importing goods with fake Certificates of Origin. The attachment was based on an investigation that had not yet resulted in a show cause notice.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the provisional attachment was issued without jurisdiction as no proceedings were pending against the petitioners, and thus quashed the impugned intimation.
Issues: The main issues included whether the provisional attachment was lawful without a show cause notice and if the petition was maintainable given the alleged availability of alternative remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that provisional attachments under Section 110(5) require pending proceedings, which were absent in this case, leading to the conclusion that the attachment was unlawful.
Result: Petition allowed; impugned intimation quashed and bank accounts ordered to be defreezed.
Anil Nagrani,Deputy Solicitor General
ORDER
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at Motion Stage. Petitioner has filed petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950 seeking following reliefs :-
2.“(a) Pass an order/ direction to call for the entire records relating to communication in F.No. DRI/IZU/63-2024/CI/INT-77(2023)/ENQ-25 dated 03.12.2024 of Respondent No. 2 sent to Respondent No. 3-5;
(b) to pass an appropriate writ/order or direction in the nature of mandamus /certiorari thereby setting aside the Impugned Intimation dated 03.12.2024 and consequently direct the Respondent No. 3-5 to de- freeze the Petitioners’ bank accounts as mentioned in the table of Para No. 1 above and (Reproduced below for ready reference)
| Sr. No. | Name of the A/c Holder | Account No. | IFSC Code |
| 1 | Mundra Exim Pvt. Ltd. | 603105265939 | ICICI0006031 |
| 2 | Mundra Agro Foods LLP | 603105255414 | ICICI0006031 |
| 3 | Mundra Agro Foods LLP | 3247753210 | KKBK0000464 |
| 4 | Mundra Exim Pvt. Ltd. | 09745100000116 | DCBL0000097 |
(c) Pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
(d) Allow the petition with costs.”
3. Facts draped in brevity, as per pleadings of the parties, which are necessary for the disposal of the present petition are being reproduced as hereunder:-
i. Petitioners are importer of Sri Lankan-origin edible goods, specifically Areca Nuts, which had sought exemption benefits under the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISLFTA).
ii. During an investigation into F. No. DRI /IZU /CI /INT-77(2023) /ENQ-52), Respondents scrutinized the past imports done by Petitioners in November, 2022 and it was noticed that petitioners had imported 4 consignments of Areca-Nuts in the past, declaring them as Srilankan origin, and availed the duty exemption under ISFTA. With regard to consignment imported in November, 2022, process of verifying the Certificates of Origin (‘COO’) in respect of the aforesaid 4 consignments was started and COO were sent to International Customs Division (‘ICD’) of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (‘CBIC’) wherein CBIC reported that one of the COO bearing CO/ISFTA/2022/20614 in respect of Bill of entry No. 3540232 dated 30.11.2022 filed by M/s Mundhra Exim Pvt. Ltd/Petitioner No.1. was found to be fake. Pertinently, in relation to aforesaid file number, two intimation notices dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure P/8) had been issued under Section 110(5) of Customs Act, 1962 thereby provisionally freezing the bank account of the petitioners for 6 months and thereafter again two intimations dated 03.06.2024 (Annexure P/9) were issued thereby extending the period of freezing of bank accounts of petitioner for another 6 months which was to expire on 03.12.2024.
iii. Upon such revelation, the Respondents opened another investigation bearing File No. DRI/IZU/63-2024/CI/NT-77(2023)/ENQ-25 and issued the first summon dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure P-11) and recorded the statement of the Director of Petitioner No.1 namely Shri Ashish Mundra.
iv. It is not disputed that investigation is currently pending in the file number DRI/IZU/63-2024/CI/NT-77(2023)/ENQ-25 against petitioners and no Show Cause Notice under Section 28, 28-AAA or 28-B of Customs Act, 1962 was issued to petitioners herein.
v. during the pendency of the investigation in the file number DRI/IZU/63-2024/CI/NT-77(2023)/ENQ-25, Notes-sheet dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure R/1) was prepared wherein approval to provisionally attach bank accounts of Petitioners was obtained from Additional Director General, DRI, Indore Zonal Unit and on the basis of the said approval, impugned intimation dated 03.12.2024 was issued freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners for a period of 6 months.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that Provisional Attachment under section 110(5) r/w section 28BA of the customs act cannot be imposed at a stage which is anterior to finalization of an assessment or raising of the Demand for which reliance has been place on the judgment o
