Writ interference with customs summons and detained goods declined, with parties directed to pursue representation before customs authorities.

A writ court will not ordinarily interfere with a summons under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 when it merely requires appearance, a statement and production of documents; the summons was therefore left intact. The court also declined direct writ relief for release of detained goods, holding that the proper course was for the petitioners to make a representation before the competent customs officer and raise all grievances, including their claims on customs jurisdiction and release on payment of fine under section 125. The authority was directed to consider the representation expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether summons issued under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 called for interference in writ jurisdiction; (ii) whether the petitioners should be granted direct relief for release of the detained goods.

Issue (i): whether summons issued under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 called for interference in writ jurisdiction

Analysis: The summons only required the petitioners to appear, give a statement and submit documents. The Court found no reason to interfere at this stage, leaving it open to the petitioners to place the correct factual position before the officer concerned.

Conclusion: The summons was not quashed.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioners should be granted direct relief for release of the detained goods

Analysis: The Court held that the proper course was for the petitioners to submit a representation before the Superintendent (Prevention), Customs Department, Lucknow Division, raising all grievances, including the contention that goods of Indian origin were outside customs jurisdiction and that foreign-origin goods could be released on payment of fine under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The authority was directed to consider the representation expeditiously.

Conclusion: Direct writ relief for release of goods was declined and the petitioners were relegated to representation.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of without interference in the summons, while leaving the petitioners to pursue their grievance regarding release of goods before the customs through a representation.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not ordinarily interfere with a summons under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 that merely requires appearance and production of documents, and disputes regarding release of detained goods may be pursued before the competent authority by representation.

---