Customs authorities have statutory discretion under Section 108 of Customs Act to require physical presence during inquiry.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be a business man in UAE. The reliefs sought in this writ petition are as follows:

“i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to give his statement through video conferencing in connection with the proceedings arising out of Exts. P2, P3, P4 and P7.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to consider and pass final orders on Ext. P8 forthwith or within such time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice, including costs.

iv) To dispense the above original petition along with English translation of Malayalam Documents.

2. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the summons issued by the 1^st respondent to the petitioner, as part of an inquiry under Section 108 of the Customs Act. According to the petitioner, the summons was issued in connection with proceedings arising from a search conducted at the premises of the building leased out by the petitioner to one Sulfiker, as evidenced by Ext.P1 license agreement. Even though the petitioner was present at the time when the search was conducted, subsequently he went abroad. It is reported that in the search so conducted, the Customs authorities had seized 36,74,000 pieces of fake cigarettes. According to the petitioner, immediately upon receipt of the first summons in January, the petitioner submitted a request, seeking exemption from personal appearance and also to permit him to appear through online. However, without considering the same, the 1^st respondent has been issuing repeated summonses requiring the petitioner to appear in person before the the said respondent. Ext P6 was also issued by the said respondent rejecting the said request. According to the petitioner, he has no connection with the activities that were being carried out in the premises and therefore, he seeks for the permission to appear through video conferencing.

3. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents stoutly opposes the reliefs sought by the petitioner, by pointing out that the presence of the petitioner is required as part of the inquiry going on, in connection with the search. It is pointed out that, even though the petitioner was present at the time of the search, later he absconded and despite the issuance of three summonses, the petitioner did not appear before the authorities concerned.

4. After carefully going though the records and hearing the contentions raised by both sides, I do not find any justifiable reasons to entertain this writ petition and to grant the reliefs sought for. This is particularly because, what is in progress at the instance of the 1^st respondent is an inquiry based on the search conducted by the said respondent in the premises owned by the petitioner and it is having a statutory back up as per the provisions of the Customs Act. It is not for this Court to interfere in such a proceedings at this point, as it is for the respondents to complete the inquiry by complying with the formalities in connection with the same.

5. It is to be noted in this regard that, section 108 of the Customs Act, specifically confers power upon the respondents to ensure the attendance of any person, to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry.

Admittedly, in this case, the inquiry is being conducted, based on a search conducted in the premises of the petitioner, in which, the commission of an act attracting