2019 (4) TMI 1921 - HC - Customs

Power to investigate/inquire - Smuggling - Gold - Baggage Rules - issuance of summons under section 108 of Customs Act - whether the Customs authorities have been at all empowered to investigate or inquire into this offence by the Customs Act, 1962 or by any other law? HELD THAT - In the complaint made by the Customs authorities to the police only obstruction caused to them by the appellant was complained of. There was no allegation as is being made today, about illegal importation of gold or any other items in that particular complaint, made some seven days after the incident - the purported Section 108 summons dated 26th March, 2019 could not have covered the contravention now alleged by them. Even if it is said that this summons covered the alleged illegal, importation or other contravention in that case there ought to have been a recital in the summons as to the new allegation the Customs sought to level against the appellant. Whether this Section 108 summons could have been issued in aid of investigation by the Customs into an offence under Section 133 of the Customs Act, 1962? - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that this incident occurred more than three weeks ago, the appellant for whatsoever reason could leave the airport and the summons issued belatedly, we find that there is no urgency requiring the appellant to answer the summons today or at any date in the near future - the Joint Commissioner of Customs is directed to extend the returnable date of this summons to a date after 31st July, 2019 to enable the Learned Single to decide the matter. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in relation to the power of Customs authorities to investigate offenses, the validity of a summons issued under Section 108, the possibility of parallel investigations by Customs and police, and the timeline and urgency of responding to the summons.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Calcutta involved a detailed analysis of the legal issues arising from an interim order related to a writ application. The case revolved around the interpretation of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically focusing on the power of Customs authorities to investigate offenses. The Court considered whether the Customs authorities were empowered to inquire into the offense of obstruction under Section 133 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's counsel argued that the Customs authorities did not possess such investigative powers, which should be reserved for the police under the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the other hand, the Customs authorities contended that Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed them to conduct investigations. The Court also examined the language used in the impugned summons under Section 108, which referenced the offense under Section 133, and whether it could cover a range of contraventions under the Customs Act, 1962.

The judgment further delved into the issue of parallel investigations, with the appellant's counsel asserting that simultaneous investigations by Customs and police would be unlawful and unjust. In response, the Customs authorities cited Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which they believed permitted such parallel investigations. The Court also considered the timeline and urgency of the summons issued by the Customs authorities, noting that it was issued 11 days after the incident and made returnable within 12 days. Given the elapsed time since the incident, the Court found no urgency necessitating the appellant's immediate response to the summons.

In light of these considerations, the Court modified the impugned judgment and ordered the Joint Commissioner of Customs to extend the returnable date of the summons to a later date, allowing for a thorough examination of the legal issues raised. The Court directed the exchange of affidavits and set a timeline for the resolution of the writ application. It emphasized that the findings presented were prima facie and urged the Learned Single Judge to decide the writ application independently. The judgment concluded by disposing of the appeal and stay application, pending the outcome of the writ application, and setting a date for further proceedings.

This detailed analysis showcases the Court's meticulous examination of the legal issues surrounding the interpretation of statutory provisions, the validity of official actions, and the procedural aspects of the case, ensuring a comprehensive review of the matter at hand.