TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o in this order. ( 2. ) In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that on the basis of specific intelligence to the effect that M/s Nila Exporters had filed a shipping bill bearing no.000596 dated 22.5.2007 in INland Container Depot, Thudiyalur, Coimbatore declaring that the goods in the shipping bill documents are 100% cotton powerloom woven men's night pants and the consignee is M/s Primark Tiends S.L.U., Dublin, Ireland and the said shipping bill was filed by the exporter under the Duty Drawback Scheme and that the exporter had misdeclared the goods in order to avail the undue benefit of drawback, the Directorate of Revenue INtelligence, Chennai detained the export container covered under the above shipping bill. On examination of the said export consignment, it was found that out of 268 cartons, 43 cartons were found to contain 2981 numbers of pants appearing to be of inferior quality and the remaining 225 cartons were found to contain used/torn/dirty/cheap rags and used clothes/nighties appearing to be of no commercial value. On the reasonable belief that the goods are liable to confiscation, they were seized under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. A search w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual drawback claimed from the Customs department were noted down. Secondly, he would submit that Form 13 which was also said to have been obtained by Thiru.S.Ganesh from the steamer agents and was also handed over to the driver on 25.5.2007 was also relied upon and the said document was also not supplied. Thirdly, he would submit that out of the documents seized in the office premises of M/s Nila Exporters, an authorisation letter dated 28.5.2005 stating that the detenu-Satish Kumar had given authorisation as if he is the General Manager of M/s Nila Exporters and as the said authorisation letter was considered as if it was prepared on 28.5.2005 instead of 28.5.2007, the said authorisation letter was not only shown to the detenu to obtain his comments, but also to Mr.Ishwar, who also speaks about the said document, and therefore the said document is vital and material and the non-furnishing of the said document would vitiate the order of detention. Fourthly, he would submit that though the detenu has requested for supply of the above documents, they were not only supplied but also there was no explanation for the non supply. Failure on the part of the detaining authority to furnish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the exporters used to give the details of foreign buyers, but the goods were delivered in Dubai, that the liner were requested to indicate the Port of Discharge as indicated in the bill of lading and shipping bill because it is to be shown in the bank remittances for obtaining drawback, that further, they used to handover a set of bill of lading mentioning the Port of Discharge as in the shipping bill and used to obtain separate charge for the same, but in fact the port of discharge is to be mentioned as Dubai in the bill of lading, that they used to keep the original bill of lading indicating port of discharge as Dubai with them; that in Form 13 the port of discharge would be mentioned as Dubai, but in the shipping bill the port of discharge would be different, that the port of discharge in Form 13 should be as in the shipping bill, but since the container has to be loaded in the vessel going to Dubai and that of Thiru.Ganesh, it was mentioned as Dubai in Form 13, that this will be contrary to the port of discharge mentioned in the shipping bill, that the bill of lading containing actual port of discharge was not given. The petitioner had in the affidavit in paragraph-8(c)(ii) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lows:- Law is well settled that the detaining authority is required to give copies of the relied upon documents along with grounds of detention and non furnishing of relied upon document has the effect of vitiating the order of detention. See Pownammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, (1999) SCC (Crl.) 231. Where, however, a document is not relied upon, yet the detenu asks for copy of such document, which is either referred to or has got some bearing, it is the duty of the appropriate authority to furnish such copy or atleast indicate the reason why such copy is not supplied to the detenu in spite of specific request by the detenu. As already indicated, where a document asked for is on the face of it irrelevant, non furnishing of such document is immaterial. Where, however, the document has got some relevance, refusal to supply such copy, in spite of specific request, without any valid reason, may have the effect of vitiating the order of detention as the detenu is likely to be prejudiced, inasmuch as he would not be in a position to make an effective representation. From a reading of the above Full Bench judgment, it appears to us that when a document has got some relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tating that all the documents which were taken into consideration for passing the detention order were supplied to the detenu. The explanation is so vague and the order does not mention as to which of the documents are referred to and which of the documents are relied upon to pass the order of detention. In the absence of any proper explanation and in the absence of specific denial of the averments made in the affidavit that these documents have been relied upon, in our considered view, the failure to supply the above documents, in spite of the request made on behalf of the detenu, has deprived the valuable right of the detenu to make a further representation to the Advisory Board and on this ground alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed. For all the above reasons, the impugned order of detention dated 16.7.2007 made in G.O.SR.I/530-5/07 Public (SC) Department is quashed and H.C.P.No.1208 of 2007 is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. In view of the above, the impugned order of detention dated 16.7.2007 made in G.O.SR.I/530-6/07 Public (SC) Department is also quashed and H.C.P.No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
