TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs Act: Court Rules on Summons and Witness Rights</h1> The Court interpreted Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, holding that a summons under Section 108 can be issued without a prior enquiry under ... Investigation/Enquiry Issues:Interpretation of Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the issuance of summons and the right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.Analysis:1. The judgment discusses the interpretation of Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners contended that a summons under Section 108 cannot be issued without an enquiry as per Section 124. They relied on decisions from various High Courts and the Supreme Court to support their argument. The Gujarat High Court held that Section 108 applies when an enquiry for confiscation or penalty is initiated. The Kerala High Court equated Sections 39 and 40 of a different Act to Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act. The Bombay High Court observed that Section 108 relates to a formal inquiry where a person can be required to provide evidence and documents through summons.2. The judgment further delves into the scope of Sections 107 and 108 based on previous rulings. A Full Bench of the High Court had previously discussed these sections, highlighting that Section 107 involves a less formal enquiry by Customs Officers, while Section 108 is akin to a more formal inquiry under the Sea Customs Act. The power to collect information by summoning persons under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act was considered an independent power. The Supreme Court's observations on Section 171-A were also cited to emphasize the authority of Customs Officers to summon individuals for giving evidence.3. The Court rejected the argument that a person summoned under Section 108 should be allowed to have a lawyer present during interrogation. Citing a previous judgment, the Court emphasized that the investigation must be kept secret, and the identity of the person being examined may need to remain confidential. The judgment highlighted that the person interrogated may be a witness unconnected to the offense or someone involved in an offense.4. Additionally, the judgment addressed concerns raised about witnesses being examined at any time of the day and being kept in one room. The Court clarified that witnesses are examined only during office hours. The judgment concluded by dismissing all appeals and stating that witnesses can be questioned by Customs Officers, with their answers being recorded by the Officer.5. Post-delivery of the judgment, a contention was raised regarding whether a witness summoned under Section 108 could be compelled to write down their statement. The Court noted this argument but found no legal provision compelling a witness to write their statement. It was clarified that the Customs Officer can ask questions, and the witness's answers can be recorded by the Officer.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
