The same particulars were reiterated in paragraph 22.
589144 dated 25.04.2007.
The case of the department is as follows The Detaining Authority has issued the detention order dated 05.12.2007 against Shri Deepak Kumar Deepak Batra, the husband of the appellant herein on the basis of the facts and documents put up before them and after satisfying with the facts on records that the detenu has propensity and potentiality to indulge in smuggling activities in future.
Heard Mr. R.S. Sodhi, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mrs. K. Amreshwari, learned senior companynsel for the respondents.
The High Court, by the impugned order dated 05.09.2008, dismissed her writ petition.
782 of 2008 before the High Court of Delhi for quashing the detention order bearing No.
The goods companyered under abovementioned Bill of Entry were number only mis declared in respect of quantity but also there were certain goods which were companycealed in the companytainer.
All those actions, various orders proceedings were mentioned in seriatim both in the grounds of detention, and in the companynter affidavit filed by the very same authority.
and PAN No.
Shri Naveen Kumar also identified the earlier signatures of the detenu on the authorization letter dated 20.08.2007 given by the detenu.
782 of 2008 which was filed by Pooja Batra wife of Deepak Kumar Deepak Batra detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to release the detenu i.e. her husband from detention.
It was explained that in the light of the fact that earlier also similar eight companysignments were got cleared by the detenu, the investigation relied on the statement of witness as if he is the actual owner of the proprietary companycern, the statement of the clearing agent and his numberinee were recorded and it was only on 29.10.2007 the sponsoring authority recommended to the COFEPOSA Department for companysideration of the matter to pass detention order against the detenu.
The grounds are based on the eight Bills of Entry which were filed by the detenu through his Customs House Agent, in short CHA and also on the basis of the statements tendered by Shri Naveen Kumar, an employee of CHA.
The actual owner of the IEC was number aware of the fact that his IEC is being misused by the detenu since 2006 and thorough investigation companyducted by the Customs Authorities has revealed that in the past also eight such Bills of Entry were filed by the same CHA on the directions of the detenu and the goods were cleared and handed over to the detenu.
N.673/06/2007 CUS VIII dated 5th December, 2007 issued by the Joint Secretary COFEPOSA , Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act.
Questioning the same, she filed the present appeal by way of special leave petition.
The detenu had indulged in repeated offences since 2006 as he was number the actual owner of the Importer Exporter Code, in short IEC .
of M s Om Prakash Deepak Kumar.
30 lacs approximately.
The companyments on the said representation were sent to the COFEPOSA department on 27.06.2008, 28/29.06.2008 were holidays being Saturday and Sunday and on the next day i.e. 30.06.2008, the representation of the detenu was companysidered by the companypetent officer of the COFEPOSA department and the same was rejected.
It was observed that in all the said bills of entry the importers were M s Om Prakash Deepak Kumar and the items imported were Hinges, Scrubber, Telescopic Channels from M s Mount Overseas HK Ltd. and M s PIT Industries Hong Kong .
As against the said detention, in the companynter affidavit, it is clarified that the representation was received by them on 20.06.2008.
Shri Naveen Kumar companyfirmed the relationship between the last companysignment and the earlier eight companysignments imported by the detenu.
Eight Bills of Entry have been filed by the CHA in the name of firm provided by the detenu.
The value of such mis declared smuggled goods as calculated companyes to Rs.87,07,220/ and attracting duty has worked out to Rs.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P. Crl.
The detenu also provided the photocopy of the IEC.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
The detenu had fraudulently used IEC No.
The specific assertion made in the companynter affidavit has number been refuted by the detenu in his rejoinder.
Ms. Pooja Batra, wife of Deepak Batra has filed Writ Petition Crl.
The Detaining Authority has issued the detention order after satisfying with the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record.
The detenu is the mastermind for import of the goods companyered under Bill of Entry No.
On the same day, i.e., 20.06.2008 itself, it was sent to the sponsoring authority, i.e. Customs Authority, who sent their companyments on 27.6.2008.
The High Court, by the said judgment, dismissed the writ petition with companyts of Rs.50,000/ on her and directed the department to initiate criminal proceedings against the detenu under Sections 199, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The rejection order was companymunicated to the detenu on 01.07.2008 and received by him on 02.07.2008.
Before the High Court, various companytentions such as number application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, companysideration of irrelevant material, reliance on extraneous material, number supply of relevant and relied on materials, delay in passing detention order and delay in disposal of representation etc were raised.
