9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale proceeds of smuggled goods. The scheme of Sections 113 read with Sections 121 to 124 do not appear to authorise such a course. As I have pointed out in para 17 above, two pre-conditions are to be satisfied for invoking Section 121 of the Act to order confiscation. There is no prima facie evidence to show that both these pre-conditions are satisfied in the second case on hand. The Constitutional guarantee with respect to the right to property under Article 300A cannot be allowed to be infringed at the drop of the hat, by allowing the officers to walk into any office and seize cash on the ground that they represent the sale proceeds of the smuggled goods. Therefore, I am of the view that the second writ petition deserves to be allowed' and resultantly, allowed the Writ Petition by directing the Respondents to return the amount of Rs. 7 ,00,000 /- of Indian currency seized from the office premises of the petitioner on 24.06.2014, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to their executing a personal bond to deposit the amount, if an order of adjudication is passed against them. 3. The primordial submission of the Learned Counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Currency, seized from him vide DRI File No.DRI / CZU /VIII/48/22/2014 and the same was dismissed. 8. Expatiating his contention, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants proceeds to take a plea that the Respondent had deliberately dissuaded the summons issued to him under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and had not participated in the investigation proceedings so far. Also, it is represented on behalf of the Appellants that the provisional release of the Indian currency amount of Rs. 7 ,00,000 /- seized from the office premises of the Respondent on 26.04.2014 indeed would cause great prejudice to the adjudication proceedings. 9. While winding up, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the cash seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act is based on the reasonable belief that the same are sale proceeds of the smuggled goods which cannot be released/returned to the Respondent. 10. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Learned Single Judge had rightly allowed the Writ Petition by directing the Appellants to return the amount of Rs. 7 ,00,000 /- of Indian currency seized from the office premises of the Respondent/Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and as such, the solemnity and sanctity are attached to the statements under Section 108 of the Act. If a person summoned or required to answer the questions or to adduce evidence in connection with the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, fails to do the same, then he is to face the necessary consequences. 15. Suffice it for this Court to point out that when an individual is obliged to attend in pursuance to the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, he is to state the truth and is expected to appear before the officer in obedience to the summons and in compliance with Law. Also that, it is the inherent power of every Gazetted Officer of the Customs Department to enquire into the matter of smuggling etc. 16. To put it succinctly, a summon can be issued to a person for the production of documents or those in possession or under the control of persons summoned and such a person is bound to attend and state the truth upon any subject pertaining to which he is examined by the summoning officer and these powers are showered obviously with an idea to check the smu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1962 or any other law for the time being in force. 22. On a careful consideration of respective contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the Respondent had not responded to the five summons issued to him by the concerned officer of the Department (beginning from 16.07.2014 to 14.08.2014) and instead he filed W.P.No.22700 of 2014 before this Court on 18.08.2014. The Respondent/Petitioner is obliged to attend in pursuance to the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act and is expected to state the truth and further he is to appear before the officer concerned in obedience to the summons issued and in compliance with law. Without making his appearance before the concerned officer and avoiding the five summons issued, the filing of Writ Petition by the Respondent/Petitioner is a premature and otiose one. Ordinarily, as against the issuance of summons, a Writ Petition would not lie. When the Respondent had not participated in the enquiry/investigation proceedings by dissuading the five summons issued to him, then, the filing of the Writ Petition by him is devoid of merits, in the considered opinion of this Court. 23. That apart, in view of the fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
