TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court overturns trial decision, allows Revenue to utilize Customs Act Section 124.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Cus. (Preventive), Kolkata Versus Balaji Multiplex Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Cus. (Preventive), Kolkata Versus Balaji Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (343) E.L.T. 110 (Cal.) Issues:The issues involved in this case are the interpretation of provisions of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the requirement of magisterial permission for conducting an enquiry under the Customs Act.Interpretation of Section 124 of the Customs Act:The appellant, represented by Mr. Bharadwaj, challenged an order preventing them from taking steps under Section 124 of the Customs Act, which allows for the issuance of show cause notices before confiscation of goods. The respondent, represented by Mr. Biswas, argued that all offences under the Customs Act are non-cognizable, necessitating magisterial permission before initiating an enquiry. He cited the case of Om Prakash v. Union of India to support this contention. However, it was emphasized that the provisions of Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not automatically apply, and the powers granted to Customs Officers under Chapter XIII of the Customs Act should not be curtailed.Magisterial Permission for Enquiry under Customs Act:Mr. Bharadwaj asserted that magisterial intervention is not required during the investigation stage, citing the case of Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal. The judgment highlighted the powers of Customs Officers under Sections 107-109, specifically focusing on Section 108 which empowers officers to summon individuals, with the obligation to state the truth. It was clarified that magisterial intervention is not envisaged under this section, as the objective is for the officer to elicit the truth from the person being examined. The judgment emphasized that statements recorded under Section 108 are distinct from those recorded by Police Officers during investigations under the Code of Criminal Procedure.Conclusion:The High Court held that the trial Court erred in preventing the appellant/Revenue from utilizing the provisions of Section 124 of the Customs Act. Therefore, the order impeding the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant the right to proceed with enforcement under Section 124.
TaxTMI 