Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2021 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 136 - HC - CustomsSmuggling - Detention order - Illegal availment of duty drawback - reasonable basis provided by any statements or not - section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act - petitioner is alleged to have attempted to export goods ‘on paper’ without actually exporting anything - prejudicial activity under the COFEPOSA Act - whether there was a live-link or a causal connection between the prejudicial activity, in which the petitioner is alleged to have indulged, and the passing of the detention order? - grounds on which the detention order is premised are ‘stale’ or ‘illusory’ or have ‘no real nexus’ with the need for placing the petitioner under prevention detention, or not. HELD THAT:- A close and careful perusal of the time-chart discloses that the 'actual activity’ which the petitioner is alleged to have done was of having ‘exported certain goods only on-paper’ vidé shipping Bill No. 9551237 dated 11.12.2018, whereby, as the allegation goes, the vehicle carrying goods was found to have been a tractor (presumably, as opposed to a truck or other goods carrier) and no goods were in fact loaded for onward export, though duty drawback and benefit under the IGST Act are alleged to have been availed. The other dates contained in the time-chart from 11.12.2018 all the way upto the passing of the impugned detention order dated 15.01.2021, which order was served upon the petitioner on 23.01.2021, do not disclose any other prejudicial activity which the petitioner can be said to have undertaken after 11.12.2018. Since, as the record discloses, the last act which the petitioner undertook, and which may amount to prejudicial activity, was on 11.12.2018, but the detention order was passed more than 02 years later on 15.01.2021, it is evident that the live-link or causal connection between the petitioner’s preventive detention, meant to forestall the petitioner from indulging in any prejudicial activity, can surely be said to have snapped - the detention order passed on 15.01.2021 and served upon the petitioner on 23.01.2021 cannot be said to be validly based upon alleged prejudicial activity undertaken by the petitioner on 11.12.2018. A gap of more than 02 years between the last alleged prejudicial activity undertaken by the petitioner cannot be the basis for a justifiable apprehension that the petitioner would indulge again in similar prejudicial activity, to prevent which he should be preventively detained. The petitioner is directed to be released from custody forthwith, unless his custody is required in any other matter - petition disposed off.
|