2008 (1) TMI 638 - HC - Customs

Failure to provide seized documents under Customs Act, 1962 deemed without jurisdiction. Respondents ordered to comply within 7 days.

The court found that the respondent's failure to provide seized documents to the petitioner, as required under Section 110(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, ... Search and seizure - petitioner sought copies of the documents seized in the office premises - petitioner received a communication that the documents would be provided to him on completion of the investigation - Held that:- it is mandatory on the officer of Customs to make available the copies asked for. The choice of either asking for the document or seeking extract is of the party concerned and not that of the officer. In other words, if any document is seized during the course of any action by an officer and relatable to the provisions of the Customs Act, that officer is bound to make available those documents. The action, therefore, of the respondents in communicating to the petitioner that documents would not be available, is clearly an act without jurisdiction, respondents to make available the copies of the documents asked for by the petitioner which was seized during the course of the seizure action. Issues: Failure to provide seized documents to petitioner under Customs Act, 1962.The judgment pertains to a case where the petitioner sought copies of documents seized during a seizure action under a panchanama and print outs drawn from a Laptop during attendance in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The respondent failed to provide the requested documents to the petitioner, stating they would be made available upon completion of the investigation and relevant documents would be supplied if found. The court analyzed Section 110(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates the person from whose custody documents are seized to be entitled to copies or extracts in the presence of a customs officer. The court emphasized that it is mandatory for the officer to make available the copies requested by the party concerned, and the officer does not have the discretion to deny the request. The court found the respondent's communication stating that the documents would not be available as an act without jurisdiction. Consequently, the court directed the respondents to provide the copies of the seized documents to the petitioner within seven days at his own cost. Failure to comply would result in a cost of Rs. 50,000 being imposed on the respondents, recoverable from the salary of the officer concerned.This judgment highlights the importance of complying with legal provisions regarding the provision of seized documents to the concerned party under the Customs Act, 1962. It underscores the mandatory nature of providing copies or extracts of seized documents to the person from whose custody they were seized and emphasizes that such actions are not at the discretion of the customs officer. The court's ruling serves as a reminder to statutory authorities to fulfill their duties according to the law and not force parties to seek relief through the court system due to non-compliance. The imposition of a cost on the respondents for failure to provide the documents underscores the seriousness of ensuring compliance with legal obligations in such matters.