Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (3) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (3) TMI 1383 - HC - Customs


Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the recording of the petitioner's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance, and the de-sealing of the petitioner's premises.

Recording of Statement under Section 108:
The petitioner sought relief in recording his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the presence of his advocate at a visible but not audible distance. The petitioner's counsel argued that there is no provision in the Customs Act authorizing custom officers to seal premises. On the other hand, respondent No.1 contended that the presence of the advocate at a visible distance is not a right for a person involved in gold smuggling and that sealing of premises was done in accordance with the provisions of Section 121 read with Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court found the petitioner's first prayer harmless, allowing the presence of the advocate at a visible distance but not audible distance. This decision was based on the petitioner's apprehension of past assault by customs officers, aiming to ensure transparency in the inquiry. The court referred to previous cases where similar permissions were granted, ultimately allowing the presence of the advocate at a visible but not audible distance during the recording of the petitioner's statement.

De-sealing of Premises:
The court partially allowed the petition, directing that if the petitioner's statement is to be recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, it should be done in the presence of the petitioner's advocate at a visible but not audible distance. The court rejected the prayer for videography and made the rule absolute in the above terms.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates