Customs summons under Section 108 require personal inquiry by the issuing officer; parallel police-linked inquiry was barred.

A summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act is valid only if the gazetted customs officer issuing it is himself conducting the inquiry and exercises the power in the statutory manner; where the summons is issued on another officer's direction without the requisite independent satisfaction, it is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Once the same incident has been lodged with the police and investigation has commenced with magisterial approval, customs authorities cannot continue a parallel inquiry into that complaint. The power to investigate customs violations arising from events within the customs area, however, was left open to the extent permitted by the Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was valid and within jurisdiction; (ii) whether the customs authorities could continue a parallel inquiry after lodging the complaint before the police and after police investigation had commenced.

Issue (i): whether the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was valid and within jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 108 requires a gazetted customs officer to summon a person in an inquiry which that officer is himself making, and the power is to be exercised in the manner prescribed by the statute. The summons in question was issued by one officer on the direction of a superior authority, while the petitioner was required to appear before another officer who was not the issuing officer. The issuing authority had not itself conducted the inquiry or formed the requisite independent satisfaction contemplated by the provision. Since the statutory conditions governing the exercise of the power were not satisfied, the issuance of summons could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The summons was without jurisdiction and was quashed in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): whether the customs authorities could continue a parallel inquiry after lodging the complaint before the police and after police investigation had commenced.

Analysis: After the customs authorities lodged the complaint and the police obtained magisterial permission to investigate the non-cognizable offences, the police investigation was already in motion. In that situation, the customs authorities could not carry on a parallel inquiry in respect of the same complaint. At the same time, the Court distinguished the incident occurring within the customs area and held that the customs authorities were not precluded from inquiring into customs violations arising from the events inside the customs airport to the extent permissible under the Customs Act.

Conclusion: Parallel inquiry was impermissible in relation to the lodged complaint, though inquiry into customs violations within the customs area was left open.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded to the extent that the impugned summons were set aside and the customs authorities were restrained from parallel inquiry in relation to the police complaint, while the broader power to inquire into customs violations within the customs area was not excluded.

Ratio Decidendi: A summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is valid only when the issuing gazetted officer himself conducts the inquiry and exercises the power strictly in the manner prescribed by the statute; once the same incident has been placed before the police and police investigation has commenced with magisterial approval, a parallel inquiry into that complaint cannot be continued.

---