Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Biswambhar Jha vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 December, 2014
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1
12 10.12.14 W.P. 31970 (W) of 2014
akd
Biswambhar Jha
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
--------
Mr. Upendra Roy, Mr. Randhir Prasad Singh.
... for the petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Saraf, Mr. P. D. Mukherjee.
... for the Customs Authority.
At the stage of summon under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner has approached this Court. The Authorities issued the summon for personal appearance of the petitioner on 4th December, 2014 for the purpose of recording evidence and the production of certain documents as reflected therein.
The petitioner says that he is no way connected with the Company, i.e. M/s. L'intimo Fashions Pvt. Ltd. and, therefore, he has been falsely implicated by the Authorities. The petitioner has even gone further to say that a team of officers visited his residence and grilled him for several questionnaire, but could not find out any sufficient material, which may not remotely suggest that the petitioner has any nexus with the said Company.
To contradict the statements of the petitioner, learned advocate for the Customs Authorities says that the documents pertaining to 'import export Code' contain the name of the petitioner and, therefore, it is 2 absolutely false statement on the part of the petitioner that he is no way connected with the said Company.
Section 108 of the Customs Act empowers the Gazetted Officer of the Customs to summon any person, whose attendance is considered necessary either to give evidence or to produce document(s) or anything in course of enquiry. Sub-section 3 of the said Section mandates such person to attend either in person or by any authorized agent and to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements and produce such documents and other things, as may be required.
The Court should seldom interfere in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the challenge is made to a summon issued under the provision of the said Act. The authorities have not decided the matter and simply asked the person to appear for giving evidence or produce documents as required for. The investigation is going on and has not culminated into any order as yet.
This Court, therefore, does not feel that at this stage the interference is called for.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and is thus dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
(HARISH TANDON, J.) 3