Customs summons under Section 108 stayed pending writ scrutiny over use for a separate alleged contravention.

A Customs summons issued under Section 108 was questioned because it appeared to be used to investigate an alleged Section 133 contravention not reflected in the earlier police complaint. The Court noted, on a prima facie basis, that such use required proper recital and that the legal scope of Section 108 for that purpose had to be decided on affidavits by the Single Judge. It also found no immediate urgency for appearance, given the time lapse and delayed issuance of the summons. Accordingly, the summons was kept in abeyance to the extent that immediate appearance was not required until 31 July 2019, pending the writ petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether a summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be used in aid of investigation into an alleged offence under Section 133 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether immediate appearance pursuant to the summons was required pending determination of the writ petition.

Analysis: The appeal arose from an interim order concerning a summons issued by the Customs authorities. The Court recorded that the earlier police complaint referred only to obstruction at the airport, while the summons referred to an offence under Section 133 of the Customs Act, 1962. On a prima facie view, the Court held that the summons could not have been used to cover the new contravention alleged without an appropriate recital, and that the legal question whether Section 108 could be invoked for such purpose required adjudication on affidavits before the learned Single Judge. The Court also found no urgency warranting immediate appearance, given the lapse of time since the incident and the belated issuance of the summons.

Conclusion: The summons was kept in abeyance to the extent that the appellant was not required to appear until 31 July 2019, and the returnable date was directed to be extended pending decision of the writ petition.

---