2024 (2) TMI 383 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Direction to respondents to not to arrest the petitioner against the summons issued under Section 108 of Customs Act 1962 - seeking expeditious disposal of enquiry pertaining to the Seizure of Betel Nuts, pending since May 2023 preferably within a stipulated time period - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that so far as the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the same is maintainable with only rider that such power should be exercised sparingly and the same has been considered in paragraph-17 of the judgement in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer 2023 (7) TMI 1008 - SUPREME COURT . The writ petition is not entertained - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of writ petition challenging summons issued u/s 108 of Customs Act 1962.
2. Applicability of Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code in case of summons under Customs Act.

Summary:
Issue 1: Maintainability of writ petition challenging summons u/s 108 of Customs Act 1962
The petitioner, a proprietor of a logistics firm, sought relief from the High Court through a writ petition, requesting protection from arrest based on summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962. The Union of India objected to the maintainability of the petition, citing the statutory powers of Custom Officers to arrest under the Act. Reference was made to the judgment in Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal emphasizing that arrest powers must be based on objective facts of an offense. The Union also argued against invoking Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code before arrest under the Customs Act. Citing the judgment in Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab, it was noted that pre-arrest protection is not a statutory right and should be sparingly exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code in case of summons under Customs Act
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Om Prakash vs. Union of India, highlighting that offenses under the Customs Act are bailable, similar to those under the Central Excise Act. The petitioner argued that the writ petition should be allowed based on this reasoning. The Court acknowledged the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but declined to entertain it at that stage, emphasizing that authorities must proceed in accordance with the law. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962, emphasizing the need for authorities to act in accordance with the law. The Court considered the arguments regarding the statutory powers of Custom Officers and the applicability of bail provisions in cases under the Customs Act, ultimately deciding not to entertain the petition at that stage.