2016 (12) TMI 1593 - HC - Customs

Presence of counsel for the petitioner during the recording of statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - Let the petitioner appear before respondent no.3 for inquiry on 03.01.2017 at 11 00 a.m. for her questioning along with all the documents required of her in the earlier notices issued to her - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of summons under Customs Act, 1962
2. Presence of counsel during recording of statement

Quashing of Summons:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash a summons dated 13.12.2016. The first relief in the writ petition was not pressed by the petitioner during arguments and was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the second relief regarding the presence of counsel during the recording of a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was allowed. This decision was influenced by a detailed order passed in another case titled Tripta Thapar v. State, where similar relief was granted. The petitioner was directed to appear for an inquiry on a specified date and time, along with necessary documents. No further notice was deemed necessary under Section 108 of the Act.

Presence of Counsel during Recording of Statement:
The court permitted the petitioner's counsel to accompany her during the inquiry. The counsel was allowed to observe the inquiry process from a distance where he could see but not hear the proceedings. The inquiry was to be conducted in the presence of a lady officer from the DRI. The petitioner was instructed to appear for questioning on a specific date and time, with the inquiry to be conducted until 5:00 p.m. If required, the inquiry could continue on subsequent days during office hours. An order was issued under the signatures of the Court Master for necessary action.

This judgment addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding the quashing of a summons and the presence of counsel during the inquiry process under the Customs Act, 1962. The court dismissed the first relief sought by the petitioner but granted the second relief based on a similar precedent. The detailed directions provided clarity on the petitioner's obligations during the inquiry, including the presence of counsel and the conduct of the proceedings.