TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1093
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in short DRI ) dated 19.12.2016. The impugned summons have been issued by the second respondent in exercise of his power under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as Act ). 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in import and trading of second-hand/used printing machinery. The petitioner had been regularly importing such machinery from various countries and after importation, the documents filed by the petitioner were examined and customs duty was levied under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner would state that the Officers of Customs, while making the assessment of the bills of entry, usually insist for Chartered Engineer's certificate and based on the certification, the value is fixed and w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the officers of the third respondent on 08.02.2016 and the petitioner firm does not have any other documents relating to import and sale of those goods. The petitioner would state that the second respondent has directed the petitioner to come for questioning once again only with payment of differential duty and the petitioner apprehended arrest at the hands of the second respondent. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Writ Petition stating that the action on the part of the second respondent is not in accordance with law. 6. Mr.S.Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the first summon and had co-operated with the inves....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the petitioner, as there are contradictions in two places, particularly, in paragraph Nos.7 & 8 of the counter affidavit. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in the case of M.M.Telekom vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. 252 (Mad.) 9. Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned counsel appearing for the DRI contended that the documents retrieved during the search proceedings indicated that the petitioner had declared lower value of offset printing machines before customs authority to evade customs duty. In the panchnama recorded on 08.02.2016, the partners accepted that they had mis-declared the value of the imported offset printing machines and evaded payment of appropriate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the decision in the case of K.Elumalai vs. Commissioner of Customs and others, in W.P.No.6650 of 2017, dated 04.07.2017. 12. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 13. The challenge in the present Writ Petitions is to summon issued under Section 108 of the Act. The petitioner does not dispute the authority or jurisdiction of the investigating agency namely, the DRI to summon the petitioner. The challenge to the impugned summons is on very limited ground stating that no useful purpose would be served by directing the petitioner to appear before the second respondent, inasmuch as, already the petitioner has appeared and statement has been recorded. Much earlier, the third respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....compelled to appear before the second respondent for the second time, he would be compelled to accept in writing that they have under valued the goods and therefore, the petitioner seeks for quashing the summons. The first time, the petitioner was summoned was after the search conducted on 08.02.2016, is on 22.06.2016, for examination of the hard disks. Subsequently, summons dated 07.12.2016 was issued to appear on 19.12.2016. The petitioner has appeared and his statement has been recorded under Section 108 of the Act. On the very same day, (i.e.) the date on which he appeared, before the second respondent (i.e.) on 19.12.2016, one more summon was issued (impugned summon) directing him to appear on 06.01.2017. In the counter affidavit, it h....