2009 (8) TMI 682 - HC - Customs

Natural Justice - Application for supply of Xerox copies of documents filed but rejected High Court in previous order directed supply of copies but department stating that certain documents cannot be provided at pre-investigation stage. Stand of department not acceptable. Proper officer empowered to seize any documents u/s 110(3) of the Act, 1962 but section 110(4) entitles person concerned to get copies of documents seized. Contention on investigation getting prejudiced fallacious. Copies of documents directed to be provided.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Denial of Xerox copies of seized documents
2. Jurisdiction of the authority over the petitioner's premises

Issue 1: Denial of Xerox copies of seized documents

The petitioner sought relief for quashing a letter denying Xerox copies of documents seized during an inspection and requested copies for compliance with statutory requirements. The court focused solely on the supply of Xerox copies, not the legality of the seizure itself. The petitioner questioned the authority's denial of copies and argued for the necessity of providing them for compliance and natural justice. The court acknowledged the seizure of documents and the petitioner's application for copies, leading to the filing of a writ petition. The court highlighted the compliance order by a Division Bench for providing copies promptly. The department later communicated its intent to provide some documents but withhold incriminating ones. The court examined Section 110 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the entitlement of the person from whom documents were seized to obtain copies under Section 110(4). The petitioner contended that the department had a duty to furnish copies post-seizure. The respondents argued against providing copies during the investigation, citing potential prejudice. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing the obligation under Section 110(4) to provide copies without time limitations. The court concluded by partially allowing the writ application, directing the department to provide copies of all documents, including those initially withheld.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the authority over the petitioner's premises

While the petitioner raised concerns about the authority's jurisdiction over their premises, the court did not delve into this issue, focusing solely on the supply of Xerox copies of seized documents. The court clarified that other questions raised by the petitioner were not addressed in this judgment, leaving it open for the petitioner to raise them before the appropriate authority at a later stage.

In summary, the judgment primarily addressed the denial of Xerox copies of seized documents, emphasizing the petitioner's entitlement under Section 110(4) of the Customs Act. The court dismissed arguments of potential prejudice during the investigation, directing the department to provide copies as requested. The issue of jurisdiction over the petitioner's premises was not explored in this judgment, allowing the petitioner to address it separately if needed.