Court enforces appearance summons under Customs Act, emphasizing cooperation. Counsel allowed near but not audible for statement recording.

The court upheld the summons for the petitioner's appearance under the Customs Act, emphasizing her obligation to cooperate in the investigation due to her substantial stake in the firms. Additionally, the court granted permission for the petitioner's counsel to be present at a visible but non-audible distance during the statement recording under Section 108 of the Act, ensuring oversight without impeding the investigative process.

---

---

Issues:
1. Writ petition seeking quashing of summons under Customs Act.
2. Presence of counsel during statement recording under Section 108 of the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash a summons issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under the Customs Act. The petitioner, a majority shareholder in two firms, was summoned to provide documents related to imports made by the firms. Despite repeated summons and explanations for non-appearance, the petitioner challenged the requirement to appear. The court noted the petitioner's substantial stake in the firms and emphasized her obligation to cooperate in the investigation. The court dismissed the petitioner's argument that her appearance would serve no purpose, highlighting her significant role in the firms under scrutiny.

Issue 2:
The petitioner also sought permission for her counsel to be present during the recording of her statement under Section 108 of the Act. The petitioner's counsel cited previous court orders allowing such presence during inquiries. The respondents opposed this request, relying on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the investigative process and the limited role of legal representation during questioning. However, the petitioner relied on a subsequent decision that clarified the role of counsel during interrogation. The court granted the petitioner's request, allowing her counsel to be present at a visible but non-audible distance during the inquiry, ensuring oversight without interfering with the investigative process.

In conclusion, the court upheld the summons for the petitioner's appearance and granted permission for her counsel to be present during the inquiry, ensuring compliance with legal procedures while safeguarding the petitioner's rights.

---