Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act could be quashed on the ground that the Department already had affidavits and documents, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the ongoing customs inquiry.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act empowers customs officers to examine persons, require documents, and summon attendance in connection with inquiries relating to smuggling of goods. The availability of some affidavits or documents does not bar the Department from seeking further information through summons. The dispensation of show cause notice in the earlier proceedings did not curtail the power to conduct inquiry or summon persons. The Court also held that the request to stall the inquiry was premature and that writ jurisdiction should not be used to interdict an ongoing investigation where the authority considers further inquiry necessary.
Conclusion: The summons were held to be valid and the writ petitions were dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The customs authorities were entitled to proceed with inquiry and to compel attendance and evidence under the statutory summons power, and the High Court declined to interfere with the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: In a customs inquiry, the power to summon persons and documents under Section 108 is not excluded merely because some material is already on record, and writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be exercised to halt such an inquiry absent illegality or lack of authority.