2013 (2) TMI 832 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - action of issuing summons - petitioner is a foreign national residing in U.K. - petitioner submitted that there is a finding recorded in the order-in-original that the petitioner is not an Indian citizen - Held that - We find that there is no such finding and there is no such finding is shown to us by the learned counsel. All that is recorded is that the petitioner is having address abroad - at this stage, when only a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act is issued, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act for a foreign national residing in the U.K., Investigation into a non-cognizable offence without prior permission of the Magistrate, Interpretation of the decision in Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan case, Finding of the petitioner's citizenship in the order-in-original, Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In this case, the petitioner, a foreign national residing in the U.K., challenged the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction as the Customs Act only extends to India. The petitioner contended that issuing the summons without prior permission of the Magistrate for investigating a non-cognizable offence was unlawful. The petitioner relied on the decision in Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan case to support their argument.

The respondents, however, clarified that they were not investigating a non-cognizable offence and that the summons under Section 108 was the only action taken. The court accepted this clarification, noting that the previous judgment did not establish that issuing such summons constituted part of an offence investigation.

The petitioner's counsel claimed that there was a finding in the order-in-original stating that the petitioner was not an Indian citizen. However, the court found no such explicit finding and no evidence was presented to support this claim, only that the petitioner had an address abroad.

Ultimately, the court held that since only a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act was issued at that stage, there was no basis for interference through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petition was rejected, subject to the observations made during the proceedings.