Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents
Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents. Any Gazetted Officer of customs shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry which such officer is making under this Act.] (2) A summons to produce documents or other things may be for The Act came into force on 01 Feb 1963.
1[(1) Any Gazetted Officer of customs 2*** shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry which such officer is making under this Act.]
(2) A summons to produce documents or other things may be for the production of certain specified documents or things or for the production of all documents or things of a certain description in the possession or under the control of the person summoned.
(3) All persons so summoned shall be bound to attend either in person or by an authorised agent, as such officer may direct; and all persons so summoned shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements and produce such documents and other things as may be required:
Provided that the exemption under section 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall be applicable to any requisition for attendance under this section.
(4) Every such inquiry as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
Section 108, The Customs Act, 1962 (Act 52 of 1962).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court cannot grant blanket anticipatory bail protecting an accused from arrest for any non-bailable offence, nor can it impose conditions such as prior notice before arrest on the statutory power of arrest vested in investigating authorities under section 104 of Customs Act. Anticipatory bail must be specific to identified offence(s), based on applicant's reasonable apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence, and cannot include conditions that interfere with or obstruct the legitimate investigative authority and statutory powers of arrest. The jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail is discretionary but must be exercised within statutory limits and cannot be used to impose judicial obstacles to investigation.
On this section: Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents in inquiry. Court held that statements under this section are distinct from police interrogation and person summoned is not an accused. Obligation to state truth is foundational to the inquiry process.
-
Thakker Shipping P. LTD vs Commr. of Customs(general)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Appellate Tribunal possesses the competence to invoke Section 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 to condone delays in making applications under Section 129D(4) of the Act, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that there existed sufficient cause for non-presentation of the application within the prescribed period. This competence arises from the explicit language of Section 129D(4) which provides that applications made by the Commissioner shall be heard as if they were appeals against adjudicating authority orders and that the provisions of the Act regarding appeals, so far as they may be applicable, shall apply to such applications. Consequently, Section 129A(5) stands incorporated into Section 129D(4) by way of legal fiction, and the Tribunal must give effect to this incorporation.
On this section: Recording of statements during customs investigations; mentioned regarding Vijay Thakker's statement in the factual background
-
The Commnr. of Customs(gen) Mumbai vs Abdulla Koyloth
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the burden of proof lies on customs authorities to establish that a transaction value declared by an importer is incorrect, once it is established through credible evidence (such as market surveys conducted with the importer's acknowledgment or clear misdeclaration of goods) that the declared value does not reflect the true transaction value, the transaction value may be rejected and the sequential valuation procedure under Rules 5-8 of the Customs Valuation Rules must be applied. The findings of misdeclaration, once established through consistent evidence including admissions by the importer, must be properly examined and weighed by the appellate authority rather than being ignored or dismissed summarily. A proper remand is warranted when the appellate tribunal has failed to appreciate material evidence on record, including the importer's own statements accepting the correctness of alternative valuations.
On this section: Recording of statements from importers - statements admitting discrepancies and accepting market survey values hold evidentiary significance
-
Mohd. Aslam Khan vs Narcotics Control Bureau
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt, through independent corroborating evidence, that an accused person owns and is in actual possession of a premises from which contraband is seized. Retracted confessions, uncorroborated documents without established authenticity, and circumstantial information alone are insufficient to prove such ownership. The burden rests entirely on the prosecution to independently establish these foundational facts through proper evidence such as documents from concerned authorities, identification by independent witnesses, or expert verification, before invoking procedural provisions like Section 66 of NDPS Act. Possession of contraband at a location does not, by itself, establish ownership of that location.
On this section: Relates to statements given during customs investigation. The appellant gave statements under this section which were later retracted
-
Deepharma Ltd. vs The Chief Enforcement Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused person is exonerated on merits in departmental adjudication proceedings on identical charges and facts, and the departmental authorities themselves record a categorical and unambiguous finding that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act, it would be unjust and an abuse of process of law to allow criminal proceedings to continue against such person on the same allegations and facts. However, if the exoneration in departmental proceedings is on technical grounds or by giving benefit of doubt and not on merits, or if the adjudication proceedings were on different facts, the criminal proceedings can continue. The test is whether: (1) charges in departmental and criminal proceedings are identical, and (2) exoneration in departmental proceedings is on merits holding that there is no contravention of the provisions of any Act.
On this section: Statement recorded from accused; admissibility and weight of such statements even when retracted
-
Directorate of Revenue Intelli vs Vivek Nagpal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a respondent has successfully challenged the initiation of criminal proceedings through a revision petition and the trial court has subsequently cancelled all further proceedings and discharged the surety, a subsequent order of the trial court granting a final opportunity for prosecution evidence becomes infructuous and should be quashed, as the proceedings have been brought to a close by the earlier order of the High Court.
On this section: Cited as additional statutory basis for prosecution of respondent for non-compliance with summons
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… It was alleged that the goods were grossly undervalued. After taking representative samples, the goods were detained for further investigation. On 21st February 2018, the goods were seized on the ground that the same were found to be mis-declared and undervalued. Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act of the respondent and the customs broker were recorded on 23rd February 2018. The appellant's past import details were retrieved from the system, and it was found that the importer had imported identical/similar items with the same model numbers at higher and different unit prices. The appellant …
-
… detenus, they were apprehended by officers of DRI on 10.06.2019 at about 2:00 p.m. at the Food Court of Quest Mall, 33, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Park Circus, Beck Bagan Row, Kolkata, West Bengal – 700017 and taken to the latter's office. That the detenus' selfincriminating confessions were purportedly obtained under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and they were formally shown as arrested on 11.06.2019 under the provisions of Section 104 of the Act. That thereafter the detenus were produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate on 12.06.2019. 3.1 That vide order dated 12.06.2019 in Misc. …
-
… four Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed for quashing of Summons issued by the Respondent No. 2 (DRI) under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. In the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in the Case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s Canon India Pvt. Ltd., reported as 2024 INSC 854, it has been held that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in the absence of conferment of power of being " proper officer" …
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 108
What have the courts held on Section 108 of the Customs Act?
Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc (03 Oct 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents in inquiry. Court held that statements under this section are distinct from police interrogation and person summoned is not an accused. Obligation to state truth is foundational to the inquiry process. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 1996 to 2012.
How do I find court cases under Section 108 of the Customs Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Customs Act 1962 108, section 108 Customs Act 1962, section 108 of the Customs Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal Etc (03 Oct 2008).
What should I read with Section 108 of the Customs Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Indian Penal Code 228 (Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. One instrument names it without being made under it, most recently Appointment of offiicers of Directorate of Valuation as officers of Customs.- Circular No.2/1999-Customs, dated 25.1.99 (1999).
When did Section 108 of the Customs Act come into force?
Section 108 of the Customs Act, cited as Customs Act 1962 108, came into force on 01 Feb 1963, having been enacted on 13 Dec 1962. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 28. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded2145 words
- 2. Definitions1638 words
- 129A. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal1170 words
- 27. Claim for refund of duty1060 words
- 127C. Procedure on receipt of an application under section 127B1056 words
- 138C. Admissibility of micro films, facsimile copies of documents and computer print outs as documents and as evidence872 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.