2021 (1) TMI 276 - HC - Customs

Grant of anticipatory bail - Case of applicant is that summons have been wrongly issued against him on the basis of suspicion and has argued regarding the facts mentioned in the summon - HELD THAT - This Court finds that Section 108 of the Customs Act gives power to summon persons to give evidence and produce document before any Gazetted Officer of Customs duly empowered by the State Government to produce a document or any other thing in inquiry. All persons so summoned are bound to attend such inquiry and it is deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Section 198 and Section 228 I.P.C. Almost similar provision exist u/s 70 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. In a case u/s 70 of the aforesaid act, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The applicant, Nabi Ahmad, shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail for a period of six weeks or till the inquiry is concluded by the Officer concerned u/s 108 of the Customs Act, whichever is earlier, on execution of a personal bond of ₹ 1,00,000/- and two sureties of the like amount before the Officer subject to conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appearance of counsel in court order
2. Anticipatory bail application under Customs Act, 1962

Appearance of Counsel in Court Order:
The judgment begins with the mention of the appearance of the counsel for the opposite party in court and the subsequent request to include his name in the order. The counsel pointed out the omission of his name in a previous order and requested its inclusion. The court duly acknowledged this request and made note of the appearance of the counsel for the opposite party in the present order.

Anticipatory Bail Application under Customs Act, 1962:
The judgment then delves into the details of the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant sought protection against arrest following summons issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The counsel for the applicant argued that the summons were wrongly issued based on suspicion and requested protection for the applicant against arrest. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party submitted that the summons were issued based on specific intelligence input against the firm of the applicant. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the power to summon persons for inquiry. It also referred to a previous judgment granting anticipatory bail under a similar provision in another act. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant for a specified period, subject to certain conditions such as cooperation with the inquiry, non-interference with witnesses, and surrender of passport if applicable. The judgment also outlined the consequences of non-compliance with the conditions and allowed the Customs Officer to continue the inquiry unaffected by the court's observations.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of appearance of counsel in the court order and the grant of anticipatory bail under the Customs Act, 1962, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions involved.