2008 (7) TMI 233 - HC - Customs

Petitioner had asked for supply of all photocopies of the statements of witnesses without even mentioning as to who were the witnesses whose statements he required - petitioner has not stated how the non-availability of these statements caused prejudice to him - Held that there was no deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court and no case for contempt is made out against the respondent (revenue) - petition, being without any basis, is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Contempt petition for non-supply of pre-recorded statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act despite court order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging intentional non-compliance with the court order of supplying pre-recorded statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The petitioner claimed that despite representations, he was not provided with the required documents and was issued a certificate of non-availability of documents before the inquiry officer.

2. The inquiry officer acknowledged the petitioner's plea regarding the non-supply of pre-recorded statements, highlighting the delay caused in the inquiry process due to the unavailability of these documents. The disciplinary authorities were cautioned about the potential contempt of court consequences due to the delay in providing the necessary statements.

3. The disciplinary authorities responded by instructing the inquiry officer to make efforts to procure the additional documents requested by the petitioner. If any document was unavailable, a non-availability certificate was to be issued. Subsequently, it was communicated that the charged officer (petitioner) had already inspected files and obtained photocopies of witness statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

4. The Commissioner of Customs House informed that the documents requested were not available, issuing a certificate of non-availability. The inquiry officer confirmed the non-availability certificate and provided copies of certain documents to the charged officer. The inquiry was scheduled to proceed, but the petitioner filed the contempt petition, alleging non-compliance.

5. The court noted that all documents requested by the petitioner were either supplied or non-availability certificates were issued. The petitioner's actions appeared to be aimed at delaying the inquiry process. The court refused the petitioner's request to stay the proceedings and observed that there was no deliberate violation of court orders by the respondent.

6. Upon reviewing the records, the court found that the respondent had made efforts to comply with the court orders. The petitioner was allowed to inspect records and provided with photocopies of witness statements. The petitioner, however, had not specified the names of witnesses whose statements he required, causing some confusion in the process.

7. The court concluded that there was no deliberate violation of court orders by the respondent. Efforts were made to supply the necessary documents, and the petitioner was provided with relevant statements. The non-availability of certain documents did not prejudice the petitioner's defense, and no mala fide intentions were found on the respondent's part. The petition was dismissed for lacking a valid basis.