Customs summons under Section 108 operate independently, with no pre-notice right to counsel and no compulsion to write statements.

Section 108 of the Customs Act confers an independent power to summon persons and record evidence in inquiries connected with smuggling, and its use is not contingent on prior commencement of confiscation or penalty proceedings under Section 124. During such interrogation, there is no statutory or inherent right to have a lawyer present, given the investigative character of the inquiry. A witness may be asked questions and have answers recorded by the Customs Officer, but cannot be compelled to write out his own statement. The article therefore clarifies the scope of pre-notice customs inquiry, the absence of a right to counsel at that stage, and the permissible method of recording statements.

---

---

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

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

Analysis: Section 108 was treated as an independent power enabling inquiry in connection with smuggling of goods and the recording of evidence for ascertaining facts. The Court held that the provision was not confined to a stage after a show-cause notice under Section 124, and that the contemplated inquiry could be undertaken even before confiscation or penalty proceedings were initiated. The distinction between the investigatory function under Section 107 and the wider evidentiary inquiry under Section 108 supported this view.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and summons under Section 108 were held to be valid without prior commencement of Section 124 proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether a person summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 had a right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.

Analysis: The Court relied on its earlier view that interrogation under Section 108 is part of a secret investigation into smuggling and that the presence of a lawyer is not a statutory or inherent right at that stage. The nature of the inquiry, which may involve persons suspected of involvement as well as mere witnesses, did not justify importing such a right into the provision.

Conclusion: The claimed right to have a lawyer present was negatived.

Issue (iii): Whether a witness summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be compelled to write down his own statement.

Analysis: The Court found no provision of law authorising compulsion of a witness to write his own statement. It held that the Customs Officer may ask questions and record the answers, but the statement need not be written by the witness himself.

Conclusion: The witness could not be compelled to write down his own statement.

Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld the customs authorities' power to conduct a pre-notice inquiry by summons, denied a right to counsel at that stage, and clarified that the officer may record the witness's answers rather than require the witness to draft the statement himself.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 confers an independent power to summon persons for inquiry in connection with smuggling, without making its exercise contingent on prior proceedings under Section 124, and without carrying a right to the presence of counsel during such interrogation.

---