Section 108 customs inquiry: independent summons power, no automatic right to counsel, and no compulsion to write statements.

Section 108 of the Customs Act confers an independent power to summon persons for inquiry into smuggling, and that power is not confined to the stage after a Section 124 notice. A person examined under Section 108 has no right, as of course, to insist on the presence of counsel during interrogation because the inquiry is investigative rather than adversarial. A witness cannot be compelled to write down his own statement, although the Customs Officer may question the witness and record the answers. The summons-based customs inquiry was sustained, while the mode of recording statements was clarified.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be issued only after commencement of proceedings under Section 124 of that Act; (ii) whether a person summoned under Section 108 had a right to have a lawyer present during interrogation; (iii) whether a witness summoned under Section 108 could be compelled to write down his own statement.

Issue (i): whether a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be issued only after commencement of proceedings under Section 124 of that Act.

Analysis: Section 108 was treated as an independent power enabling inquiry in connection with smuggling of goods and the Court held that it was not confined to a post-notice stage. Section 107 was recognised as dealing with investigatory emergencies, while Section 108 was held to authorise summoning persons to give evidence or produce documents for ascertaining facts relating to smuggling. The absence of a notice under Section 124 did not bar the exercise of this power.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the summons under Section 108 was upheld as valid even before any Section 124 notice.

Issue (ii): whether a person summoned under Section 108 had a right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.

Analysis: The Court followed the view that examination under Section 108 is part of a secret inquiry in which the person summoned is not entitled, as of right, to insist on the presence of counsel. The nature of the inquiry was treated as investigative and not adversarial, and the identity of the person examined may be required to remain undisclosed until a later stage.

Conclusion: The claimed right to the of a lawyer during examination under Section 108 was negatived.

Issue (iii): whether a witness summoned under Section 108 could be compelled to write down his own statement.

Analysis: After delivery of the judgment, the Court dealt with the overlooked contention and found no authority in law compelling a witness to write down his own statement. It clarified that the Customs Officer may put questions and record the answers given by the witness.

Conclusion: The witness could not be compelled to write down his own statement, though the Customs Officer could record the answers.

Final Conclusion: The summons-based inquiry under customs law was sustained, the challenge to the absence of counsel failed, and only the mode of recording a witness's statement was clarified in favour of the appellants; the appeals nevertheless stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 confers an independent power to summon persons for inquiry into smuggling without awaiting a Section 124 notice, and such examination does not carry a right to the presence of counsel as a matter of course.

---