Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2020 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 564 - HC - CustomsDetention order - Smuggling - carrying dutiable or prohibited goods - Gold - currency - Baggage Rules - COFEPOSA Act - HELD THAT:- The subjective satisfaction requisite on the part of the Detaining Authority, the formation of which is a condition precedent to the passing of the Detention Order, gets vitiated only if material or vital documents, which could have a bearing on the issue and would influence the mind of the Detaining Authority, one way or the other, are not placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority. The assertion of the Detenue that, the said ‘Summons’ were not relied upon by the Sponsoring Authority or placed before the Detaining Authority does not vitiate the ‘subjective satisfaction’ recorded by the Detaining Authority, since the same was not relevant for the formation of the ‘subjective satisfaction’ of the Detaining Authority. Further, the Detenue’s assertion that he was not even supplied with a copy of the said ‘Summons’ is factually incorrect and does not further his case. Coming to the submission qua the ‘Non-Recovery Panchnama’, the Sponsoring Authority did not rely upon that document, since the search proceedings did not result in the recovery of any incriminating documents, other than some personal documents of the Detenue, such as PAN Card, Aadhaar Card and Driving License. Therefore, the Panchnama, cannot be said to be material, the non- placement of which would render the Detention Order illegal. In the present case, it is observed that huge volumes of gold had been smuggled into the country, illegally and unabatedly for the last five years and that about 8350 grams of gold has been brought into India during the period from November 2018 to May 2019 by the Detenue camouflaging the same as accessories of garments and buckle rings of bags. It is further observed that the Detaining Authority was justifiably satisfied, founded on the relevant material placed before it by the Sponsoring Authority, that the Detenue demonstrably has the propensity to indulge in the same acts of smuggling, if not prevented by way of the Detention Order from so doing - It is trite to state that the order of preventive detention is a preventive measure and that predicated on the admissible voluntary statements of the Detenue, which clearly bring out the role of the Detenue in the smuggling of Gold, as well as, other materials placed before the Detaining Authority, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, recorded in the Detention Order qua the continued propensity and inclination of the Detenue to continue to indulge into acts of smuggling in a planned manner, to the detriment of the economic security of the country, cannot be faulted and does not warrant interference of this Court in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction. The present writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
|