Case Law Details
AL Ameen Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court recently heard the case of AL Ameen vs Commissioner of Customs, centered on a dispute about the seizure of a motorized boat under the Customs Act. This article provides an overview, analysis, and conclusion of the case, specifically focusing on the court’s order for the petitioner to appear before the customs authority for an enquiry.
The petitioner had sought a directive for the customs officials not to harass him during the course of the enquiry. However, the court noted that the petitioner had not yet appeared before the respondents for the enquiry despite receiving summons on three occasions. The court found it surprising that the petitioner was seeking relief from alleged harassment before appearing for the mandated enquiry. Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel failed to provide specifics on when and where the alleged harassment took place.
The court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, directing the petitioner to appear before the customs authority on a specified date. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach an appropriate court if he had grievances about the enquiry process or its outcome.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking for a direction to the third respondent not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on 25.05.2023, the petitioner’s motorized boat has been seized by the respondents and the petitioner has given a representation before the higher officials of the third respondent as there was no response, filed a writ petition in W.P(MD).No.14574 of 2023, seeking for a direction to release the boat of the petitioner considering his representation dated 12.06.2023. The said writ petition was disposed of on 22.06.2023 directing the petitioner to appear before the respondents/customs officials for enquiry and submit his explanation, on which, the respondents were directed to release the boat if the petitioner makes cogent and truthful explanation.
3. Now, the present petition is filed for a direction to the respondents not to harass the petitioner under the guise of enquiry.
4. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondents Police and submit his explanation, as per the orders of this Court in W.P(MD).No.14574 of 2023. It is surprising that even before the petitioner makes his appearance before the respondents, the petitioner has moved this petition for a direction to the respondents not to harass him. During the course of hearing, the petitioner’s counsel failed to explain as to on what date and which place, the petitioner was harassed by the respondents.
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submits that the summons were issued to the petitioner thrice for enquiry as directed by this Court in W.P(MD).No.14574 of 2023. But inspite of receiving the summons, the petitioner never chose to appear before the respondent. He has brought to the notice of this Court that latest summons were issued on 20.07.2023 directing the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 28.07.2023 before the third respondent office and instead of appearing for enquiry, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. Considering the circumstances, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to appear before the third respondent on 28.07.2023 and in case if the petitioner is having grievance in the manner of conducting enquiry and in the outcome of the enquiry, he is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court.
