2020 (1) TMI 393 - HC - Customs

Validity of notices issued under Sec.108 of the Customs Act - demand of CCTV replay - case of petitioner is that notices issued under Sec.108 of the Customs Act does not contain the subject matter regarding which the investigation is conducted by the 2nd respondent and the demand of production of CCTV footages of 11.11.2019 was not possible by the petitioner as he is not the custodian of the same - HELD THAT - Having regard to the nature of the factual matters raised in this petition, this Court deems fit it not necessary to keep the matter pending any longer, and suffice to order that the competent authority among the respondents will proceed with the matter in pursuance to the impugned notices strictly in accordance with law, so as to not to give room for any complaint. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged misuse of power by Customs Officers in demanding CCTV replay.
2. Legality and propriety of notices issued under Sec.108 of the Customs Act.
3. Authority of the Customs Officials to investigate the incident.
4. Validity of the demands made on the petitioner.
5. Relief sought through the Writ Petition.

Issue 1: Alleged misuse of power by Customs Officers
The petitioner, an Assistant General Manager working as an Airport Manager, alleged that Customs Officers barged into his office, demanded CCTV replay, and threatened him with dire consequences. The petitioner expressed inability to comply on valid grounds, leading to the issuance of notices under Sec.108 of the Customs Act. The petitioner contended that the demands were unsustainable, issued by misuse of power, and tainted with malafides.

Issue 2: Legality and propriety of notices under Sec.108
The petitioner challenged the legality, correctness, and reasonableness of the notices (Exts.P4, P6 & P8) issued under Sec.108 of the Customs Act. The petitioner argued that these notices did not contain the subject matter of the investigation conducted by the Customs Officials and that the demand for CCTV footage was not feasible as the petitioner was not the custodian of the recordings.

Issue 3: Authority of Customs Officials to investigate
The petitioner disputed the authority of the Customs Officials, particularly the 2nd respondent, to investigate the incident that occurred in the petitioner's office chamber. The petitioner highlighted that the Customs Act did not empower the 2nd respondent to inquire into the mentioned incident, as evident from the documents submitted.

Issue 4: Validity of demands made on the petitioner
The petitioner raised concerns about the threats and demands made by the Customs Officials, emphasizing that the petitioner was not obligated to produce the requested CCTV footage. Despite previous requests for the footage, the petitioner was still threatened with dire consequences if he did not comply, leading to the petitioner's assertion that the demands were unsustainable and issued by misuse of power.

Issue 5: Relief sought through the Writ Petition
The petitioner sought various reliefs through the Writ Petition, including quashing the notices, directing appropriate applications for obtaining CCTV footage, issuing proper notices for further summons, permitting legal representation in proceedings, and any other suitable relief deemed fit by the Court for the interest of justice.

In the judgment, the Court noted the appearances and statements of both parties and ordered the competent authority among the respondents to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with the law. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek legal remedies if any justiciable grievances arise after the finalization of proceedings.