2016 (4) TMI 1402 - HC - Customs

Court quashes summons under Customs Act for lack of details. Petitioner granted relief.

The court set aside and quashed the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, as it lacked essential details and failed to specify the ... Issuance of Summons u/s 108 of Customs Act - requirement of petitioner to present himself in person before the Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI , DZU, New Delhi - HELD THAT:- The summons in original has been placed on record by the petitioner. A perusal thereof reveals that the summons under Section 108 of the said Act is completely bereft of all necessary and material particulars. It does not even specify the inquiry/investigation in relation to which the petitioner has been summoned. It is also evident that the impugned summons is completely silent in respect of any case being registered against the petitioner as well as absent of any information as to why he has been called. The impugned summons is ex facie unsustainable. Consequently, the summons dated 19.03.2016 is set aside and quashed - Petition disposed off. Issues: Impugning summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962The judgment pertains to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the issuance of a summons dated 19.03.2016 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner was required to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, DZU, New Delhi on 21.03.2016. The summons lacked essential particulars regarding the inquiry or investigation for which the petitioner was summoned, and it did not mention any case registered against the petitioner or provide reasons for the summons.The court found the summons to be unsustainable as it lacked crucial details and failed to specify the purpose of summoning the petitioner. Consequently, the summons dated 19.03.2016 was set aside and quashed. The counsel for the DRI confirmed that there were no pending proceedings against the petitioner at that time. The official respondent was granted the liberty to summon the petitioner again in accordance with the law.The court directed that any future action against the petitioner must strictly adhere to legal procedures and statutory requirements. It was emphasized that any coercive action against the petitioner could only be taken after initiating proceedings in accordance with the law and serving a seven days' notice to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of along with any pending applications.