The court affirmed that summons under the Customs Act for inquiry do not imply arrest, and apprehensions of unlawful arrest must be substantiated to warrant judicial intervention.

ORDER :

1. Heard on admission.

2. By instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of prohibition, certiorary, mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to prohibit the officers of the respondents from taking any coercive action under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act of 1962’) against the petitioners. The relief clause further states that prayer made by the petitioners is that such coercive action should not be taken without following the mandatory provisions of the Constitution of India; Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure; without adjudication of the show cause notice; and until collection of credible evidence and forming reasons to believe.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondent-authorities have issued summons under Section 108 of the Act of 1962 to the petitioners, requiring them to appear before the authorities. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the manner in which the respondents are proceeding to make various enquiries/investigations and issuing show cause notice on the allegation of alleged evasion of customs duty during the course of certain transactions, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest as soon as they appear pursuant to those summons issued against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any sort of offence whatsoever and they are completely innocent.

4. It is further submitted that the background of allegations in which the summons have been issued to the petitioners, indicates that the petitioners are sought to be associated, without any basis, in certain business transactions of sale and purchase of diamonds allegedly made without payment of duty leviable under the Act of 1962. It is submitted that with respect to the alleged investigation done by the prosecution, certain persons have already been arrested, who had applied for grant of regular bail and in some of the cases, relief has also been granted. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the show cause notice has already been issued alleging evasion of duty, which proceedings are still pending. Even though, there is no cogent and clinching material available with the respondents insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, the petitioners are under strong apprehension that the moment they appear before the authority pursuant to those impugned summons, they will be arrested.

5. It is also submitted that the respondent-authorities at Jaipur and Ahmedabad, both are carrying out parallel proceedings. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned summons have been issued by the authorities at Ahmedabad, which does not have territorial jurisdiction to deal with the petitioners in respect of alleged evasion of customs duty. It is also submitted that there are reasons for the petitioners to apprehend that respondents may even proceed to arrest them without following the mandate of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, on advance copy, would submit that the summons which have been issued to the petitioners are in valid exercise of powers under Section 108 of the Act of 1962. The summons, on its face, do not, by itself, show that the petitioners are being summoned for the purposes of arrest. He would submit that the contents of summons show that the petitioners have been directed to appear before the authority for the purposes of producing documents; tender statement; and to produce other materials in the matter of making enquiry in connection with Non Physical Import under the Act of 1962. Further the notice also shows that their evidence may also be required. He would submit that the transactions, wherein customs duty is alleged to have evaded, allegedly involve the petitioners also and, therefore, summons have been issued by the competent authority.

7. Having h