AMAR SARAN, AND SURENDRA SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.P. Kesarwani, for Central Excise and Customs and the learned A.G.A. The summons under Section 108 of Custom Act dated 23.7.2010, 287.2010, 29.7.2010 and 31.7.2010, issued by respondent no.3, Superintendent ( SIIB), ICD, Dadri, Tilpata,Gautam Budh Nagar have been challenged by means of this writ petition.
(2.) THE grounds for challenging the said summons are that the petitioner had already disclosed that he was only a forwarding agent for supplying the containers to different export units and he had nothing to do with the export by the co-accused and as such the provisions of the Customs Act and Trade Tax etc. were not applicable to him. The issuance of summons was a colourable exercise of power and that the petitioner apprehended that he would be arrested, pursuant to the summons by the customs authorities without there being any complaint against him. No show cause notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner and straight way the summons were issued and there was a violation of principles of natural justice. An interim order dated 11.8.2009 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 16091 of 2009 was cited in this connection, whereby the summons were kept in abeyance and it was observed that the summons were issued in violation of the principle of natural justice. Learned counsel for the Customs and Central Excise, however, argued that the said petition was dismissed on 12.10.2009 and it was observed in the order that the summons were issued merely to get evidence and to obtain statements concerning an enquiry. This was well within the scope of section 14 of Central Excise act. So far as the petitioner's submission of his fearing arrest, it was observed that it was only his apprehension, and if the Customs Authorities arrested him, it was always open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies. If some documents were seized and it precluded the petitioner from giving a reply, it was open to the petitioner to raise his objection before the authorities concerned.
(3.) ANOTHER Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 646 of 2009 was dismissed by another Division Bench on the ground that the date fixed for appearance of the petitioner on the summons had already expired. That is also the position in the present case. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for Customs and Central Excise on a judgement of the apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Mehta Vs. State of W.B. AIR 1970 SC 940 for the proposition that the person summoned under Section 14 of the Act is bound to attend either in person or by an authorized agent, hence the Court refused to interfere. Likewise in another Division Bench in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 13070 of 2010, the prayer for quashing of summons under Section 14 of Central Excise act was rejected on the ground that only summons had been issued against the petitioner which called for no interference in a writ petition. If the petitioner was the forwarding agent of M/s Ravindra Nagar R.S. Export, he may have some knowledge about their business activities and the customs authorities should not be prevented from obtaining information relating to their export by issuing summons to the petitioner to appear before them along with some documents. This is a matter to be probed in an investigation, whether the petitioner was merely a forwarding agent or whether he was connected directly or indirectly with the business of the Export agencies whose exports were being examined by the custom authorities.;