Customs Act summons under Section 108 need not be quashed, and counsel has no general right of presence during questioning.

Writ interference with a Customs Act summons under Section 108 is unwarranted where the investigation shows prima facie material linking the person to the suspected import misdeclaration and duty evasion; the summons will not be quashed at the investigation stage. A person summoned to give a statement under Section 108 has no general right to have counsel present during questioning, and any relaxation depends on special facts and circumstances not shown here. The petition was therefore rejected on both grounds, and no relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was liable to be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to the presence of counsel during recording of his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was liable to be quashed in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioner was summoned in the course of an ongoing investigation concerning alleged mis-declaration of imported goods and evasion of customs duty. The record disclosed prima facie material suggesting the petitioner's involvement in the transactions and receipt of substantial remittances linked to the firm under investigation. At the investigation stage, no ground existed for the Court to interdict the investigative process or to treat the summons as liable to be quashed.

Conclusion: The summons were not liable to be quashed and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to the presence of counsel during recording of his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: A right to have counsel present during questioning was not available as a general rule to a person summoned as a witness under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The principle relied upon in custodial interrogation cases did not create a general entitlement in such proceedings. The relaxation granted in earlier decisions turned on special facts and circumstances, which were absent here.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the presence of counsel during questioning and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on both the challenge to the summons and the request for counsel's presence, and the Court declined to grant any relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A person summoned for statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 has no general right to the of counsel during questioning, and writ interference with such summons is unwarranted where prima facie material justifies investigation and no special facts or circumstances are shown.

---