1991 (12) TMI 62 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and validity of summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
2. Mode of issuing summons and its necessity.
3. Examination of the evidentiary value of affidavits and documents already available.
4. Allegations of abuse of power and mala fide intentions in issuing summons.
5. Scope and interpretation of Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act.
6. Legal precedents and their applicability to the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Validity of Summons Issued Under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The petitioners did not question the jurisdiction of the respondents in issuing summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The court affirmed that the power to issue summons under Section 108 is valid and lawful. The Customs Officer is empowered to summon any person whose attendance is necessary to give evidence or produce documents in any inquiry related to smuggling.

2. Mode of Issuing Summons and Its Necessity:
The petitioners contended that the mode of issuing summons was unnecessary since affidavits and documents were already available with the respondents. The court disagreed, stating that the availability of documents does not prevent the issuance of summons if the authorities deem further inquiry necessary. The court emphasized that the Customs Officer has the right to summon individuals for additional information even if some documents are already in possession.

3. Examination of the Evidentiary Value of Affidavits and Documents Already Available:
The petitioners argued the evidentiary value of affidavits and documents, suggesting that further summons were unnecessary. The court held that the evidentiary value of affidavits cannot be questioned at this stage and that the Customs Department may need more information for a thorough inquiry. The court noted that affidavits and documents do not preclude the need for further investigation.

4. Allegations of Abuse of Power and Mala Fide Intentions in Issuing Summons:
The petitioners alleged that the issuance of summons was an abuse of power and done with mala fide intentions. The court found no merit in these allegations, stating that the power to issue summons is lawful and necessary for the investigation. The court emphasized that the Customs authorities are not barred from issuing summons if they believe further inquiry is needed.

5. Scope and Interpretation of Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act:
The court provided a detailed interpretation of Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act. Section 107 empowers Customs officers to examine persons and require the production of documents relevant to an inquiry. Section 108 allows for the summoning of persons to give evidence or produce documents. The court clarified that these sections are designed to facilitate the investigatory process and are not limited to specific circumstances. The court referenced several legal precedents to support its interpretation, including decisions that highlight the broad scope of these sections.

6. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability to the Case:
The court cited multiple legal precedents to support its judgment. These included:
- The Full Bench decision in The Collector of Customs, Madras v. Kotumal Bhirumal Pahlajani, which discussed the scope of Sections 107 and 108.
- The Supreme Court's decision in Balkrishna Chaganlal Soni v. State of West Bengal, which elaborated on the investigatory powers under Section 107.
- The Division Bench decision in Vittainathan and Others v. The Collector of Customs, Coimbatore, which confirmed the broad authority of Customs officers under Sections 107 and 108.

The court concluded that the issuance of summons under Section 108 was lawful and necessary for the investigation. The petitions were dismissed, and the time for completion of the investigation was extended to 31-1-1992. The court advised the petitioners to cooperate with the Customs Department to expedite the inquiry.