1959 (9) TMI 1 - HC - Customs

Petitioner not accused under Art. 20(3); Duty to cooperate with customs upheld

The judgment concluded that the petitioner was not considered accused of an offense under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution due to the cancellation of the ... Summons - Customs Issues:1. Whether the petitioner is accused of an offense under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution.2. The competency of the Assistant Collector to issue the summons under S. 171-A.3. Allegation of smuggling in relation to the goods examined.4. Requirement for entries in the bills of entry for goods examined.5. Discrepancy in the number of packages examined and their contents.6. The obligation of the petitioner to appear and give evidence before customs authorities.Analysis:1. The judgment addressed the issue of whether the petitioner could be considered a person accused of an offense under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. The notice issued by the Assistant Collector initially hinted at prosecution under S. 167 of the Sea Customs Act. However, the subsequent cancellation of this portion of the notice indicated that there was no intention to proceed criminally against the petitioner, thereby negating the accusation of an offense.2. The competency of the Assistant Collector to issue the summons under S. 171-A was challenged. It was argued that smuggling, a prerequisite for invoking S. 171-A, did not apply since the goods had lawfully entered the country. The judgment clarified that misdeclaration of goods, as in this case with different bulbs than described, could constitute smuggling, thus upholding the Assistant Collector's authority to issue the summons.3. The judgment also discussed the necessity of an explicit allegation of smuggling for issuing summons under S. 171-A. It emphasized that the section empowers customs officers to summon individuals concerning goods reasonably believed to be smuggled, without mandating a specific allegation of smuggling beforehand.4. Regarding the requirement for entries in bills of entry for examined goods, the judgment noted that the absence of such entries did not impact the petitioner's obligation to appear and provide evidence before the customs authorities.5. A discrepancy in the number of packages examined and their contents was highlighted, with the judgment pointing out inconsistencies in the information provided. However, it was concluded that this discrepancy did not affect the petitioner's duty to attend and testify before the Assistant Collector.6. Finally, the judgment affirmed the obligation of the petitioner to appear and give evidence before the customs authorities, dismissing contentions irrelevant to this primary issue. It emphasized the petitioner's duty to cooperate in the investigation, irrespective of other arguments raised regarding the importation of the goods.