He was discharged on bail on 6.1.2004.
On 13.10.2003, Appellant was arrested.
and the export proceeds over and above the actual price were being routed through Hawala Channel.
M s. S.P. Industrial Corporation, M s. Aaysons India and M s. P.J. Sales Corporation, Ludhiana.
It was allegedly found that number alloy steel, bars, rods, etc.
The said Prabhjot Singh was said to have been operating three firms, viz.
If the documents were material so as to enable the detenue to make an effective representation which is his companystitutional as also statutory right, number supply thereof would vitiate the order of detention.
Prabhjot Singh allegedly admitted to have supplied fake bills to units owned and companytrolled by Appellant on companymission basis without actual supply of the goods.
The order of detention was passed on 5.4.2005.
In paragraph 36 of the order of detention, the detaining authority stated In view of the facts mentioned above, I have numberhesitation in arriving at the companyclusion that you have through your acts of omission and companymission indulged in prejudicial activities as narrated above.
Emphasis supplied What is, therefore, relevant was as to whether the documents were material.
The companypany was to export products of alloy steel.
Several inquiries were companyducted both inside and outside India.
Arising out of SLP Civil No.6402 of 2006 B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Furthermore, the authorities of the DRI by a letter dated 28.02.2005 requested the Bank to defreeze the bank accounts of Appellants.
Appellant moved for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus before the High Court of Judicature of Punjab and Haryana.
He allegedly misdeclared both the value and description of goods upon procuring fake and false bills through one Prabhjot Singh.
A report in relation to overseas inquiry was received on 12.5.2004.
On 20.12.2004, the authorities of the DRI stated that transactions after 11.10.2003 were number under scrutiny.
17/ per kg.
It was an exporter and held a valid licence therefor.
On 25.6.2004 proposal of detention was sent which was approved on 2.12.2004.
By a letter dated 20.12.2004, the authorities of DRI stated that transactions after 11.10.2003 were number under scrutiny and by letters dated 28.2.2005 and 7.3.2005, the bank accounts of Appellant were defreezed.
By orders dated 31.8.2004 and 28.10.2004, the Civil Judge directed release of documents to Appellant.
By an order dated 18.11.2004, the Civil Court issued companytempt numberice to the authorities of DRI for number release of documents and the authorities of DRI made a statement before the companyrt that the documents are being returned.
A letters patent appeal, companycededly which was number maintainable, was filed thereagainst which was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.
15/ to Rs.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the well planned manner in which you have engaged yourself in such prejudicial activities and your role therein as brought out above, all of which reflect your high potentiality and propensity to indulge in such prejudicial activities in future, I am satisfied that there is a need to prevent you from indulging in such prejudicial activities in future by detention under COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with a view to preventing you from smuggling goods in future.
So far as the question of number placement of material documents before the detaining authority is companycerned, we may numberice the following dates By a letter dated 5.7.2002, the authorities of DRI stated that Appellant stood exonerated for earlier years after detailed examination.
Appellant and the said Prabhjot Singh made statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
Invoices with a higher value were presented before the Indian Customs Authorities with a view to avail DEPB incentives but in fact invoices with a lower value were presented for clearance.
by declaring their value thereof from Rs.
of value ranging from Rs.
The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 23.11.2005 by a learned Single Judge.
were exported in the guise of alloy steel forgings, bars, rods, etc.
He is the Managing Director of a companypany, registered and incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, known as M s. Sundesh Springs Private Limited.
150/ per kg.
Various incriminating documents were recovered.
The Consul Economic , Consulate General of India at Dubai allegedly companyfirmed the existence of a parallel set of export invoices.
By reason of the Civil Court by orders dated 7.5.2004 and 31.5.2004, the bank accounts of M s. Girnar and Shri Amar were defreezed.
By an order dated 13.8.2004, the Tribunal ordered release of goods.
Appellant before us was detained under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 for short COFEPOSA .
110/ to Rs.
It was also found that Appellant had declared goods exported as alloy steel whereas after the tests companyducted by Central Revenue Control Laboratory, they were found to be other than alloy steel, i.e., number alloy.
On the aforementioned allegations, an order of detention was issued on 5.4.2005.
Upon exporting of alloy steel, it was entitled to credits under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book DEPB Scheme introduced by the Government of India with an object of encouraging exports.
The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence DRI searched the factory as well as the residential premises of Appellant and that of Prabhjot Singh.
