Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2013 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 272 - HC - CustomsOrder u/s 3(1) of COFEPOSA - The main challenge is to the order of detention passed u/s 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Held that:- The rejoinder of the petitioner thereto and the documents relied on, that it was the petitioner, to whom the consignment was to be delivered - This is borne out not only from the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner and documents but also from the order of the Commissioner of Customs passed annexed by the petitioner to his rejoinder, which shows that penalty of Rs.15 lakhs has been levied on the petitioner - the ground raised that it was issued `against a wrong person' is devoid of any merit in the light of the material on record to show, that it was the petitioner, who was to receive the courier containing the memory chips - we are satisfied that the consignment was meant to be delivered to the petitioner; that he was unable to offer an explanation as to why there was a discrepancy in the invoice; that the alleged fax sent was doubtful; and that the petitioner had absconded and had tried to evade summons. Detention order at Pre-execution stage - Relying upon Additional Secretary to the Government of India & Ors. vs. Alka Subhash Gadia & Anr. [1990 (12) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] - Despite strenuous efforts to search the detenue, he was not found, nor did the petitioner’s wife and brother disclose the whereabouts of the petitioner - It was thus evident, that the petitioner was trying to evade the execution of the detention order - From the show cause notice, it is evident that the petitioner was an habitual offender, indulging in smuggling activities and it was with a view to preventing him in future from smuggling goods, that the detention order was passed - The ground raised by the petitioner, therefore, in our opinion, cannot be said to be `for a wrong purpose', inasmuch as, it is passed `with a view to preventing the petitioner in future from smuggling goods' - Therefore, we are of the opinion, that it cannot be said that the detention order was passed “for a wrong purpose”. While initiating action against the petitioner under the COFEPOSA, his past antecedents, that he was involved in smuggling activities in April, 2010 and in a similar smuggling activity in the year 2004, were considered and it was felt, that the detention of the petitioner was necessary “with a view to preventing him in future from smuggling goods” - the contention of the petitioner that the order was passed on `vague, extraneous and on irrelevant grounds', is devoid of merit. Considering the grounds on which the detention order is sought to be quashed at the pre-execution stage and the law relating thereto, none of the grounds are attracted in the present case – We cannot make an exception to the general rule in this case by quashing the order of detention at the pre-execution stage – there was no merit in the petition – Decided against Assessee.
|