https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348523 A person arrested in customs proceedings could not invoke Article 20(3) to resist a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act because the proceedings remained investigatory and revenue-protective, and testimonial privilege arises only after formal accusation. The Court held that the petitioner was still under inquiry, not an accused in the constitutional sense, so lawful disclosure demands could not be declined merely on self-incrimination grounds. It also held that refusal to furnish documents and particulars sought under the summons amounted to non-cooperation in breach of bail conditions requiring assistance to the investigation, making the rejection of the cancellation request unsustainable and warranting remand for fresh consideration. en-us Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348523 A person arrested in customs proceedings could not invoke Article 20(3) to resist a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act because the proceedings remained investigatory and revenue-protective, and testimonial privilege arises only after formal accusation. The Court held that the petitioner was still under inquiry, not an accused in the constitutional sense, so lawful disclosure demands could not be declined merely on self-incrimination grounds. It also held that refusal to furnish documents and particulars sought under the summons amounted to non-cooperation in breach of bail conditions requiring assistance to the investigation, making the rejection of the cancellation request unsustainable and warranting remand for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348523