2019 (4) TMI 1920 - HC - Customs

Validity of Summons issued - appellant submits that the summons is void ab initio as no independent formation of opinion was made by the Joint Commissioner of Customs himself before issuance of such summons - HELD THAT - This issue can be decided upon exchange of affidavits. Matter will appear in the combined monthly list of May, 2019 - However, the petitioner shall respond to the summons dated 26th March, 2019 but the respondent authorities will not take any coercive action against the petitioner without the leave of this Court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 to a Thai National.
2. Alleged violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India due to parallel proceedings by police and Customs authorities on the same issue.
3. Permissibility of Customs authorities to initiate separate proceedings despite police investigation.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Thai National, challenged the validity of a summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, contending that it was void ab initio as no independent opinion was formed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs before its issuance. The petitioner's counsel argued that the summons, issued on 26th March 2019, was related to an offense under Section 133 of the Customs Act, 1962, for which information had already been submitted to the police on 22nd March 2019. The petitioner claimed that the summons was barred under Article 20 of the Constitution of India due to the prior police involvement.

2. The Additional Advocate General representing the police authorities stated that they had initiated an investigation under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on information received from the Customs department. He argued that the police and Customs authorities conducting parallel proceedings on the same issue, which had criminal implications, were legally impermissible. The police continued their investigation, and the Additional Advocate General requested the court to disallow any Customs inquiry or proceeding under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

3. The Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Customs authority defended the summons' issuance, stating that it was done on the Commissioner's direction, which was lawful. He emphasized that the Customs proceedings initiated through the summons were separate from the police investigation and could have both criminal and civil consequences. The counsel asserted that Article 20 of the Constitution of India was not applicable in this case, as the Customs department's actions were within legal boundaries.

4. The judge, after hearing arguments from both sides, decided that the issue required further examination through the exchange of affidavits. The court directed the Customs department to file their affidavits within two weeks and allowed the petitioner to respond within one week thereafter. The case was scheduled to appear in the monthly list of May 2019. Additionally, the petitioner was required to respond to the summons but was protected from coercive actions by the respondent authorities without the court's permission.

5. The judge also ordered that urgent certified copies of the order be provided to the concerned parties upon completing all formalities. This comprehensive analysis outlines the legal arguments presented regarding the validity of the summons, the alleged violation of constitutional rights, and the permissibility of parallel proceedings by different authorities on the same issue under the Customs Act, 1962.