Customs — section 110(5) provisional attachment of bullion account · F2J-C-2892
M/s Dhruv Jewellers v. Principal Commissioner of Customs & Ors.
VALIDATED · ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENTSource transparency: The local PDF is an actual court document retained from the complete public source. The official court portal is recorded separately. Verify the official record and subsequent history before reliance.
Holding (ratio)
A provisional attachment under Customs Act section 110(5) ceases on expiry of the statutory maximum period; pending adjudication cannot extend it indefinitely.
Operative order (extract)
The bank was directed to defreeze the bullion account forthwith, without prejudice to other lawful action.
Scope limits
The holding is confined to the issues actually decided in the retained judgment; no view is attributed to the court on questions expressly left open or remanded.
Sources and completeness
- PDF status
- Complete searchable public court copy, retained unchanged
- PDF origin
- Downloaded unchanged from the complete public court-copy source
- PDF pages
- 8
- Extracted words
- 1,415
- PDF SHA-256
1849644a5cf2a5c62c84dce9ca69f8d556a666d84d518beba4129f9655116c80
Complete searchable judgment text
WP No. 37046 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WP No. 37046 of 2026
and
W.M.P.Nos.41563 & 41564 of 2026
M/s. DHRUV JEWELLERS,
Rep. by its proprietor Mr. Dinesh sharma,
3rd Floor, C-303, Roop Chamber,
43 and 44, Erullapan Street, Sowcarpet,
Chennai 600 001.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Principal Commissioner of Customs
New Custom House,
Chennai VII Commissionerate,
Air Cargo complex, Meenambakkam,
Chennai 600 016.
2. The Deputy Director
O/o The Additional Director General of
Revenue Intelligence,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Chennai Zonal Unit 27 G. N. Chetty Road,
T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
3. The Relationship Manager
Emerging Corporate Group
HDFC bank Ltd,
No 115, Dr Radhakrishnan Salai Branch
7th Floor, Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating
to the communication in F.No.DRI/CZU/VIII/48/Enq.1/INT-04/2022 dated
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 06:13:05 pm )
WP No. 37046 of 2026
04.08.2022 of the 2nd respondent sent to the 3rd respondent and quash the same
as illegal, without authority of law and in excess of jurisdiction insofar as it
relates to the freezing of petitioner’s Bullion Account having PAN
AXZPD7004M and BA Account No.57500000622632 of the petitioner
maintained with the 3rd respondent viz., HDFC Bank Limited,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Branch, Chennai 4 and consequently, direct the 2nd
respondent to forthwith defreeze the petitioner’s Bullion Account
No.57500000622632 and IFSC Code No.HDFC0001097 (PAN AXZPD7004M)
and to permit the operation of the above Bullion Bank Account.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.K.Jayaraj
For Respondent(s): Ms.Pooja Jain
Standing Counsel, for R1
Ms.M.Sheela
Senior Standing Counsel, for R2
Mr.C.Mohan
Ms.A.Rexy Josephine Mary
M/s.King and Partridge, for R3
ORDER
Ms.Pooja Jain, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice for the first
respondent. Ms.M.Sheela, learned Senior Standing Counsel, accepts notice for
the second respondent. Mr.C.Mohan, learned counsel of M/s.King and Partridge,
accepts notice on behalf of the third respondent.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the
communication dated 04.08.2022 issued by the second respondent to the third
respondent directing the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 06:13:05 pm )
WP No. 37046 of 2026
3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of exporting gold jewellery.
According to the petitioner, the second respondent conducted a search of the
petitioner’s premises, during which no incriminating material was found.
Nevertheless, the impugned communication was issued directing the freezing of
the petitioner’s bank account.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. Though several grounds have been raised challenging the freezing of
the bank account, it is sufficient to consider the statutory period prescribed under
Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter “said Act”).
6. Section 110(5) of the said Act permits provisional attachment of a bank
account for a period not exceeding six months. The proviso permits the Principal
Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, to extend the period by a further period not exceeding six
months. Such extension must also be communicated to the person whose account
has been attached before expiry of the period originally specified. Thus, the
provisional attachment under Section 110(5) cannot continue beyond the
maximum period of twelve months.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 06:13:05 pm )
WP No. 37046 of 2026
7. In the present case, the petitioner’s bank account was frozen pursuant
to the communication dated 04.08.2022. Even assuming that the attachment was
validly extended in accordance with the proviso to Section 110(5), the maximum
period of twelve months has long since expired. Therefore, the provisional
attachment cannot be continued under Section 110(5) beyond the statutory
period.
8. The respondents contend that, in the meantime, the adjudicating
authority has issued a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act
and, therefore, the respondents no longer have the authority to consider the
petitioner’s request for defreezing the account. According to the respondents, the
petitioner has to approach the adjudicating authority.
9. The said contention cannot be accepted. The freezing of the petitioner’s
bank account was ordered at the instance of the second respondent under Section
110(5) of the said Act. The power to provisionally attach the bank account is
expressly subject to the limitation prescribed under that provision. The
subsequent issuance of a show cause notice under Section 124 cannot, by itself,
extend the period of provisional attachment prescribed under Section 110(5).
10. Therefore, the mere pendency of adjudication proceedings cannot
justify continuation of a provisional attachment made under Section 110(5)
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 06:13:05 pm )
WP No. 37046 of 2026
beyond the maximum period prescribed by the statute.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kesari Nandan Mobile v. Office of
Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (2), Enforcement Division–5, Civil
Appeal No.9543 of 2025, decided on 14.08.2025. In that case, while considering
the statutory scheme governing provisional attachment under Section 83 of the
CGST Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that an attachment which has
ceased to operate by efflux of the statutory period cannot be continued by
administrative action.
12. Though the said decision arose under the CGST Act, the principle that
a statutory authority cannot continue a provisional attachment beyond the period
expressly permitted by the statute is relevant to the present case. In the present
case, Section 110(5) itself prescribes the maximum period for which the bank
account can remain provisionally attached.
13. In the circumstances, the continued freezing of the petitioner’s bank
account, after expiry of the statutory period prescribed under Section 110(5), has
no authority of law. The provisional attachment has ceased to operate by efflux
of time.
14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The communication issued
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 06:13:05 pm )
WP No. 37046 of 2026
by the second respondent in F.No.DRI/CZU/VIII/48/Enq.1/INT-04/2022 dated
04.08.2022 shall be treated as having ceased to operate by efflux of the statutory
period. The third respondent is directed to defreeze the petitioner’s Bullion
Account No. 57500000622632 forthwith and permit the petitioner to operate the
account.
15. This order will not preclude the respondents from taking any other
action that may be permissible in law in respect of the petitioner or the subject
matter of the investigation.
16. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
11-09-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
mk
To
1. The Principal Commissioner of Customs
New Custom House,
Chennai VII Commissionerate,
Air Cargo complex, Meenambakkam,
Chennai 600 016.
2. The Deputy Director
O/o The Additional Director General of Revenue Intelligence,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Chennai Zonal Unit 27 G. N. Chetty Road,
T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
3. The Relationship Manager
Emerging Corporate Group
HDFC bank Ltd,
No 1158 Dr Radhakrishnan Salai Branch
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 06:13:05 pm )
WP No. 37046 of 2026
7th Floor, Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004.
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
mk
WP No. 37046 of 2026
11-09-2026
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 06:13:05 pm )
WP No. 37046 of 2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2026 06:13:05 pm )
Disclaimer: Educational and research material only; not legal, tax, investment or professional advice. Verify the controlling court record, statutory version, jurisdiction and subsequent history.