Bombay HC Orders New Affidavit in Customs Case

Prem Mehra & Ors. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Bombay High Court)

In Prem Mehra & Ors. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs, the Bombay High Court rejected an affidavit submitted by Customs Officer Surgive Meena due to significant procedural flaws. The affidavit, dated August 27, 2024, contained inconsistencies, including a mismatch between the officer’s stated position in Jodhpur and the location of the declaration in Mumbai. Additionally, the court noted that the affidavit lacked proper identification by a notary public, as there were no endorsements confirming the officer’s identity or presence during the signing. The court found that the affidavit also failed to address specific questions posed in a prior order dated August 20, 2024. Despite these issues, the court chose not to issue a contempt notice against Meena but allowed him a final opportunity to file a corrected affidavit. He was instructed to appear personally before the Court Associate to affirm the new affidavit by September 20, 2024. Failure to comply would result in costs imposed on him, recoverable from his salary. The matter is set to be revisited on October 24, 2024, and the petitioners are permitted to use the faulty affidavit to highlight any contradictions in the forthcoming submission.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Mr. Mishra tenders an affidavit of one Surgive Meena dated 27^th August 2024. At the outset, we are satisfied that the said Surgive Meena may not have even read the affidavit before he signed because the opening statement in the affidavit says working as Principal Commissioner in Commissionerate of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur Headquarters, Jaipur whereas at the end it says solemnly declared at Mumbai this day 27^th August 2024. Nobody has even identified this officer before the notary public because the notary public has not made any endorsement that it was signed before him. The notary public also has not made any endorsement how he accepted the affiant to be Surgive Meena. There is no entry of the notarial register in the affidavit to confirm that the said signatory appeared before the notary public and signed.

2. Moreover, we are also satisfied that he has not answered the points that we have directed to be answered in paragraph 3 of our order dated 20^th August 2024. Therefore, we reject this affidavit. Purely by way of indulgence, in view of the requests made by Mr. Mishra we are not issuing contempt notice to the said Surgive Meena. Purely by way of indulgence we give one more opportunity to the said Surgive Meena to file an affidavit and he shall appear before the Court Associate of this Court personally and affirm the affidavit which shall be done within one week from today. If it is not done, we shall impose costs on the said Surgive Meena to be recovered from his salary for today’s adjournment and for non-compliance of this order.

3. This affidavit shall be affirmed and copy served by 20^th September 2024.

4. Stand over to 24^th October 2024.

5. However, we permit Petitioner to use this affidavit to show any contradiction in subsequent affidavit to be filed.