ED Cannot Attach Property Beyond Seized Gold in PMLA Case as DRI Had Already Seized It and Proposed Confiscation | AT-SAFEMA

Case Details: Barik Biswas v. Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement - [2025] 172 taxmann.com 490 (SAFEMA-New Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• V. Anandarajan, Member
• Mudit Jain, Shivam Tandon, R.K. Mohit, Amir Khan & Ms Manu Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
• Abhimanyu Kaul, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, a total of 44.659 kg. of gold bars and biscuits of foreign origin was recovered and seized by the officers of the DRI from the appellant. In his statement before the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the appellant admitted his involvement in smuggling gold.

The appellant also admitted that gold smuggled into India from Bangladesh was the sale proceeds of cattle smuggled from India to Bangladesh. Subsequently, a case was registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under PMLA, 2002, on the ground that the appellant generated/acquired various movable and immovable properties with tainted money, being proceeds of crime, just to cover up the taint on the proceeds of crime.

Accordingly, a provisional attachment order was passed, whereby the said properties of the appellant were attached. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the said attachment. It was noted that since the only offences that have been made out against the appellant was offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 which was in relation to foreign gold bars and biscuits valued at 13.56 crores which were seized by the DRI.

Further, it was noted that the said value matches exactly with the value of movable properties recovered and seized by the DRI. The material on record did not reveal that there were any allegations in respect of any other scheduled offence(s) against the appellant. Insofar as offences under Sections 135 of Customs Act, 1962 was concerned, property involved in the said offence was already under seizure by the DRI.

Appellate Tribunal Held

The Appellate Tribunal held that the attachment of properties over and above seized gold had no legal sanction and ought not to have been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, the impugned order was to be modified inasmuch as attachment of gold seized by the Customs authorities stood confirmed and attachment of remaining properties which had been confirmed vide the impugned order stood annulled.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Venkateshwar Rail Nirman Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Directorate of Enforcement, FPA-PMLA-3352/CHD/2019
• Indrani Patnaik v. Enforcement Directorate Writ Petition (Civil) No. 368 of 2021
• Directorate of Enforcement v. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. Criminal Appeal No(s). 1269/2017
• Yash Tuteja And Anr v. Union of India W.P. (Crl.) 153/2023
• Yash Tuteja v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine SC 533 (Para 06-07)
• EMTA Coal Limited And Others v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2023 SCC Online Del 6177 (Para 23)
• Sachin Joshi v. Adjudicating Authority 2023 SCC Online Del 1147 (Para No. 15)
• Rajinder Singh Chadha v. Union Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs And Another (2023) 5 HCC (Del) 86 (Para 43) distinguished.
• Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4634 of 2014. (Para 53) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India 2022 SCC Online SC 929 (para 29)
• cases of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India 2022 SCC Online SC 929 (Para 33, 60 and 187 (v ) (d Writ Petition (Civil) No. 368 of 2021 (para 29)
• EMTA Coal Limited And Others v. Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement 2023 SCC Online Del 6177 (para 29)
• Tukaram Kanna Joshi v. MIDC (2013) 1 SCC 353 (para 31)
• Noor Agha v. State of Punjab 2008 (16) SCC 417 (para 34).