Manish Chopra v. Principal Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner-Manish Chopra under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking issuance of an appropriate writ for setting aside the seizure memo dated 14th February, 2024 vide which Rs.42,00,000/- of the Petitioner was seized. Further, the Petitioner prays for release of the said amount.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the seizure of a sum of Rs.42,00,000/- which has been effected by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (‘DRI’) under Section 110 read with Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the same was sale proceeds of smuggled goods.

4. The case of the Respondent is that the Petitioner upon importing certain goods from China, had undervalued the same. Based on the said allegation, a search was conducted at the Petitioner’s premises being, House No. 36, UGF, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 on 14th February, 2024 during which the amount of Rs.42,00,000/- was found. Upon the Petitioner not being able to satisfactorily explain the source of the said amount, the Respondent seized the same under the presumption that it was sale proceeds from undervalued goods which is liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) read with Section 2(39) of Customs Act, 1962.

5. On the last date of hearing i.e., 20th March, 2025 ld. Counsel for the Petitioner appeared and submitted there is nothing on record to show any connection between the alleged under- valuation of goods and the seized cash.

6. Further, on the said date, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Euroasia Global vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi dated 18th September, 2007 in W.P.(C) 5677/2007. The operative portion of Euroasia (Supra) reads as under:

Petitioner ********

24. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the view that the Petitioner is also entitled to the second prayer made, namely, for the release of Indian currency of Rs.

23.90 lakhs as well as freedom from the requirement to keep a minimum balance amount of Rs. 4.89 lakhs in the bank accounts of the Petitioner.”

7. The said judgment has also been upheld by the Supreme Court in its order dated 13th September, 2021 in Civil Appeal No. 2058/2009 titled, Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi & Anr. v. M/s Euroasia Global.

8. On 20th March, 2025 ld. Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that Rs.42,00,000/- of the Petitioner is lying with the Respondent, the same may be released as the Petitioner is going through cash crunch, subject to any condition as the Court may decide.

9. In view thereof, ld. Counsel for the Respondent was directed to seek instructions in the matter.

10. Today, ld. Counsel has sought instructions. Mr. Vinay Nayak, Deputy Director (DRI) has appeared along with ld. Counsel and submits that the notice under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 has been issued in respect of the seizure of the said amount. However, no show cause notice in respect of the alleged under-valuation has yet been issued.

11. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner points out that in the counter affidavit, the clear stand of the Respondent is that the total value of goods imported was Rs. 4,00,00,000/- and the under valuation could be to the tune of Rs. 1 crore. The relevant portion is extracted below:- “It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner through his firm M/s NRG trading Company had imported similar goods (i.e. MP[5] player display, MP[5] Player and its accessories) of total value 4 crores (approx.) and it is suspected that the petitioner is indulged in undervaluation in the past consignment as well which may taken the evasion of customs duty to the tune of Rs. 1 crores (Approx).”