2019 (9) TMI 1038

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondent No.1. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia for respondent No. 3. Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for respondent No.4State. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and the learned APP for the State. 2. Perused the order dated 26th July 2019 passed by this Court. The petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red to quantify and determine the amount of customs duty. Once this amount is determined, the petitioner can pay the amount and the offences can, thereafter, be compounded by the Compounding Authority. Shri Kantawala further submitted that since the subject case is town seizure, the Adjudicating Authority for the purpose of quantifying and determining the amount of customs duty is the Commissioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been smuggled/imported in India. Whatever may be the situation, the fact remains that the offence is compoundable. The offence was registered on 16th June 2019 and thus enough time was available for the respondent No.1 to carry out investigation. The respondent No.1 can still continue with the investigation. 6. However, we find that under the provisions of section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vocate accompanying him at visible but not audible distance during his interrogation by the officers of Respondent No.1 (investigating agency) and recording of his statement shall be videographed in terms of the decision of the apex Court in Vijay Sajnani v. Union of India [Cri. M. P. No. 10117 of 2012 in WP (Cri.) No. 29 of 2012] and Rajinder Arora v. Union of India [WP (Civil) No. 389 of 2010 or....