TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 permits officers to compel statements, respecting rights and distinctions.</h1> <h3>BAXU KHAN Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The Court dismissed the writ petitions, ruling that Custom officers can compel individuals to provide statements under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs ... Writ jurisdiction - Offence - Investigation Issues:- Whether the Custom officers can compel individuals to provide confessional statements under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act.- Whether the actions of the Custom officers in summoning individuals for statements amount to harassment, coercion, or undue influence.- Whether Article 20(3) of the Constitution, protecting individuals from self-incrimination, applies in this case.Analysis:1. Compulsion for Confessional Statements:The petitioners argued that the Custom officers were pressuring them to give confessional statements despite their denial of involvement in the case. The Court referenced Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, which empower officers to examine individuals and summon them for evidence related to smuggling cases. However, the Court emphasized that these provisions do not allow for coercion or undue influence during examinations. The Court highlighted that any violation of these principles could render the statements inadmissible.2. Harassment and Coercion:The petitioners alleged harassment and coercion by the Custom officers. The Court noted the lack of specific details regarding the alleged coercion or harassment. It reiterated the statutory rights of Custom officers to summon individuals for inquiries related to smuggling and emphasized that such powers should not be lightly interfered with. The Court clarified that while officers have the authority to examine individuals, they should not harass innocent persons.3. Application of Article 20(3) of the Constitution:The petitioners contended that compelling them to provide statements violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution, protecting individuals from self-incrimination. The Court disagreed, stating that Article 20(3) applies to accused persons, which the petitioners were not at that stage. It referenced a previous case to support the exclusion of individuals under investigation from the protections of Article 20(3) until a formal accusation is made.4. Conclusion:The Court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing that the Custom officers' actions were within the scope of their statutory powers. It directed that the petitioners should comply with the summons for statements under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act. The Court also highlighted the distinction between accused persons and individuals under investigation, stating that the safeguards under Article 20(3) did not apply to the petitioners in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
