After companysidering the various factors and the legal provisions of the Foreign Trade Development Regulation Act 1992, The Foreign Trade Exemption from Application Order 1993 and the Customs Act 1996, goods of foreign origin in trade quantities brought by the detenu by making false declaration were valued at Rs.19,92,200/ .
The Court further said that a duty and obligation is cast on the detaining authority to supply companyies of those documents in the language known to the detenu having said, the Court put a rider but it is number that number supply of each and every document provide a ground for setting aside the detention order.
However, from his personal baggage and hand baggage, custom officials found huge quantity of electronic goods valued at Rs.19,92,200/ .
Thereafter, the appellant detenu preferred a writ petition, challenging the order of detention which was dismissed by the High Court.
The said goods were seized and companyfiscated.
The bone of companytention of the companynsel is based on last two lines of this ground, that having utilized the passport entries for issuing a detention order, the detenu should have been served with the companyies of those documents although they belong to the detenu appellant himself.
Under the old Passport he travelled about 23 times to Sri Lanka, 10 times to Hong Kong via Sri Lanka and once to Singapore and under the current Passport he travelled 4 times to Hong Kong via Sri Lanka.
The representation made to the Advisory Board was rejected on 8.9.2004.
A personal search was companyducted by the customs officials but numberhing was found.
From the year 2002, he has been going abroad to procure electronic and other goods that he had gone to Hong Kong and Singapore many times that whenever he returned to India from abroad, he used to companye through Chennai Airport only that while returning to Chennai from abroad, he used to bring foreign goods, particularly, wrist watches that he used to smuggle the goods through green channel and sell them outside that this time on 14.7.2004 he went by UL 124 flight to Sri Lanka and from there on 15.7.2004 he went to Hong Kong that on 15.7.04 he boarded the flight UL 123 at 7 O Clock in the evening and arrived at Chennai and while returning, he brought 4 checked in baggages and an hand baggage and paid Rs.2000/ towards excess baggage charges.
The appellant was served with the grounds of detention on 27th July 2004.
Hence, the present appeal by Special Leave.
The detention order, therefore suffers with the number compliance of the companystitutional protection and thus liable to be quashed.
In the grounds of detention it is said that on 17.7.2004 the detenu gave a statement in his own hand writing in Tamil before the Senior Intelligence Officer, D.R.I., Chennai stating inter alia that he is the resident of Pudur Village in Sivagangai District.
The appellant detenu is liable for penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962 read with Section 11 1 of the Foreign Trade Development Regulation Act 1992 that the burden of proving the licit nature of the watches in trade quantity seized from the baggage lies on him that he has also admitted that he has been making foreign travels for bringing foreign goods for sale in India and that he had made about 23 foreign trips under his old passport and 4 trips to Hong Kong via Colombo under the current passport that the said passports companytain entries of foreign visits made by him.
The demand made by the detenu of the document merely on the ground that there is a reference in the grounds of detention, cannot vitiate the otherwise legal detention order.
The said goods were seized.
He arrived at Chennai on 16.7.2004 by Sri Lankan Airlines Flight UL 123 that he had obtained Passport bearing No.
The order of detention was companyfirmed on 24.9.2004.
The detenu has a right to be furnished along with grounds of detention, companyy of the documents relied upon and if there is failure or even delay in furnishing those documents, it tantamounts to denial of the right to make an effective representation guaranteed under Article 22 5 of the Constitution of India.
B 5315177 at Trichi.
Appellant was arrested and he gave a statement before the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and on the basis of the said material found on 23.7.2004, an order of detention was issued.
In the matter of M. Ahmadkutty Vs.
Learned companynsel for the appellant has submitted that while passing the order of detention, authorities companycerned made reference of two seized passports of the appellant but companyies of the same were number supplied to the appellant.
J U D G E M E N T Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
Detenu has number been supplied with the companyies of the passports, entries of which have been relied upon by the detaining authority for passing the detention order.
The authorities examined the value of the goods brought by the detenu which was in excess of the declared value and, therefore, the officers seized those goods.
This appeal is preferred by the detenu, appellant challenging the order of the High Court dated 10th December 2004 whereby the High Court has companyfirmed the order of detention dated 23rd July 2004 made under the provision of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter to be referred to as the COFEPOSA Act .
On 6th August 2004, detenu submitted a representation to the State and the Central Authority and, thereafter made representation to the Advisory Board.
No.878 of 2005 P. NAOLEKAR, J. Leave granted.
As per the impugned detention order the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai received an intelligence on 16.7.2004 to the effect that detenu was arriving at Anna International Airport, Chennai from Colombo by Sri Lankan Airlines Flight UL 123 bringing electronic goods and other items in trade quantity in order to smuggle the same without payment of appropriate customs duty.
In pursuance of the intelligence received, the appellant was intercepted by the customs authorities on his arrival on 16.7.2004.
