TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E-1719683K dated 22.3.2010, arrived from Brussels by Jet Airways Flight No. 9W 225/9.9.2011 vide E-Ticket No. 5892863870213 at Chennai Anna International Airport. The detenu after having collected his baggage bearing Tag No. 0589 9W557345P and hand baggage passed through the green channel. However, he was intercepted at the Exit by the Air Customs Officers. He was questioned whether he wanted to declare anything to Customs and whether he was carrying any gold or other valuables in his baggage or in his person. The detenu replied in the negative. Not satisfied with the reply the Customs Officer examined the baggage and the hand baggage. But nothing was found. 2. On repeated questioning, the detenu admitted that he had five packets contain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fiscated. 6. Having found the detenu knowingly and consciously attempted to smuggle the said gold coins to India by way of concealment and non-declaration to the customs Department, the proceedings under Sec. 3(1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) was initiated. 7. The Government having satisfied that the detenu has indulged in smuggling of goods and therefore, it was necessary to detain him with a view to prevent him from indulging him in similar activities in future. 8. While coming to the subjective satisfaction the Government had taken into consideration all facts and materials placed before it and passed detention order on 7.12.2011 which was served on the detenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chennai for one day and fly back to Singapore on 11.9.2011. On reaching Chennai, in fact the detenu went to the customs counter to declare the gold but however, they have detained and arrested him. A statement was recorded compulsively. However, in the adjudication proceedings, the Additional Commissioner had considered the submissions and found the passenger was a foreign passport holder; had a document to prove legal purchase of the gold; had stated gold coins were purchased for his daughter's marriage; though the passenger did not make a declaration the request for grant of re-export, deserve consideration and thereby a fine and penalty was imposed with an option to redeem the gold for re-export. This order was passed on 21.11.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublic Prosecutor submitted that in the counter-filed by the respondent it has been categorically stated that though the passport has been impounded, the involvement of the detenu in any activity related to smuggling in the future cannot be ruled out. 13. We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials on record. 14. The facts are not denied. There is no dispute that the detenu, who is a Singapore citizen, holding a Singapore passport, travelled from Brussels to Chennai on his way to Singapore. According to the detenu originally he was only a transit passenger and there was no question of declaring any valuable or gold as there was no possibility to come out of the Customs without declaration. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ou from indulging in the smuggling of goods. The State Government, therefore, consider that it is necessary to detain you under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 with a view to preventing you from indulging in the smuggling of goods in future. 18. In the decision reported in 2010(1) SCC 609 Gimik Piotr v. State of T.N) (referred to supra) the detention of one Gimik Piotr under Sec. 3(1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act was challenged. In the order of detention passed against Gimik Piotr it had been mentioned as follows: 6. The State Government is also satisfied that on the facts and material mentioned above, if you are released on bail, you will indulge in such activities ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing a preventive detention order. Foreign currency cannot be smuggled as the person cannot move out of the country on account of his passport being impounded. Merely because a person cannot otherwise survive in the country, is no basis to conclude that a person will again resort to smuggling activities, or abetting such activities by staying in the country. There is higher standard of proof required in these circumstances involving the life and liberty of a person. The material provided by the respondents is not enough to justify the curtailment of the liberty of the appellant under an order of preventive detention in the fact and circumstances of the case. The said decision of the Apex Court has been followed in the subsequent decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
