Customs summons under Section 108 upheld despite jurisdiction and vagueness challenge in writ proceedings.

Section 108 of the Customs Act authorises a customs officer to summon any person whose evidence or documents are needed for an enquiry, and that power is not limited to proceedings against the summoned person. A challenge based on the underlying enquiry involving non-physical imports was held irrelevant to the validity of the summons. The summons were treated as sufficiently specific, repeated requests for documents already supplied were found not to cause prejudice, and GST summons guidelines were held inapplicable and non-binding in customs proceedings. In the absence of prejudice, writ interference was declined and the summons were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was without jurisdiction, vague, or otherwise liable to be quashed in writ proceedings.

Analysis: Section 108 empowers a customs officer to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary to give evidence or produce documents in an enquiry under the Act, and the power is not confined to proceedings directed against the person summoned. The challenge that the underlying enquiry concerned non-physical imports and therefore fell outside customs jurisdiction was held irrelevant to the validity of a summons under Section 108. The summons were found to be specific as to the documents required, and repeated demand for documents already supplied was held not to cause prejudice. The GST summons guidelines were held inapplicable to summons issued under the Customs Act and, in any event, non-binding. The apprehension of arrest was held to be misconceived, with remedies such as anticipatory bail available in law. In the absence of prejudice, interference in writ jurisdiction was declined.

Conclusion: The summons were upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.

---