On enquiry, it came to light that M s. Jasmine did number manufacture any ready made garments in the said premises.
were being disposed of in the local market without fulfilling export obligations in companytravention of the provi sions of the Notification No.
694/205, Village Lado Sarai, New Delhi, which on investigation was found to companyer the whole village of Lado Sarai.
306 of 1986, companyies of all the said show cause numberices dated December 26, 1985 and a companyy of the said abeyance order dated December 27, 1985 were annexed.
The repre sentation along with companyments were analysed by the Under Secretary and put up to the detain ing authority and JS on 13.2.1989.
1984 and Rs.1.17 crores against the second and third licences dated 3.8.
1988 and adjourned the case sine die.
Another civil revision petition, being C.R. No.
117/CUS/78 dated 9.6.1978 as amended and the companyditions of Advance Import Trade Control Licences.
In paragraph 47 of the grounds of detention, it has been stated by the detaining authority that the detenu has played a very active and major role for obtaining advance licences in the names of the said firms, importing the polyester filament yarn and polyester fiber, getting the same cleared from Bombay Customs and also for selling it in the local market in India in violation of the companyditions of the said Notification dated 9.6.1978 and also of the advance li cences.
Writ Petition Criminal No.
306 of 1986 has been referred to as follows As per Civil Revision No.
The three detenu including Madan Lal Anand filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab Haryana praying for the issuance of a writ of habeas companypus and challenging the validity of the order of detention on a number of grounds.
Under companyer of Collectors letter dated 9.2.1989.
Writ 545/88 .
By virtue of the other advance licences, excepting the fifth licence dated 9.1.
M s. Jasmine obtained five Actual User advance li cences in the financial year 1984 85 from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports Exports, New Delhi, for the import of polyester filament yarn and polyester fibre free of customs duty under the DEEC Scheme.
the date of the issue of the order Annexure E to Cr.
1989 and handed over the same to the dealing officer for companyments on 24.1.
1989 and 12.2.1989 being Saturday and Sunday were holidays.
18.2.1989 and 19.2.1989 were holidays.
The grievance of the detenu that the said abeyance order and the show cause numberices were number placed before the detaining authority has numberfactual foundation whatsoever inasmuch as the companyies of the same were annexed to the petition in C.R. No.
The repre sentation was sent to CCE Chandigarh for companyments on 19.1.1989.
Further, in C.R. No.
3694 of 1985 three miscellaneous applications were filed, namely, C.M. Applications Nos.
1989 and marked the file to MOS FM for companysideration of representation addressed to Central Government.
M s. Expo International also obtained five Actual User advance licences in the financial year 1984 85 from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports Exports, New Delhi, for the import of polyester filament yarn and polyester fiber, free of customs duty, under the DEEC Scheme.
and dismiss the appeal.
In ground No.
222 of 1989.
3199, 3498 and 3702 of 1988.
3694 of 1985, for he had referred to these civil revision petitions in the paragraphs mentioned above.
Further, the said two firms had numberfactory anywhere, and that they had numberintention to companyply with the companyditions of the licences, that is, to export the resultant products out of the imported material for which the advance licences were issued.
In this petition, M s. Expo International prayed for the quashing of the show cause numberices dated December 26, 1985 referred to above.
Order dated the 29th March, 1985 issued by the office of the Chief Controller of Imports Exports, New Delhi, to M s. Expo Interna tional suspending the operation of the said five advance import licences granted to them Annexure G to Cr.
3694 of 1985, was filed by M s. Jasmine through its alleged Partner, Krishan Lal Chawla, inter alia, praying for release of certain documents to the said firm so as to enable it to have its goods released from the Bombay Port.
306 of 1986 filed in the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandi garh, the factory premises were shifted some where in Mohali, but specific address of the factory was number declared either to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports Exports, New Delhi, or to any other department.
The raw material imported by the firm was never brought to either of the said two premises for the purposes of manufacture.
It is the case of the detaining authority that in respect of the imported yarn M s. Jasmine have number fulfilled their export obligation in respect of the polyester filament yarn got cleared by them against the above licences thereby violating the provisions of the said Notification dated 9.6.1978 and the companyditions of the advance licences and, companysequently, the provision of section 111 0 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Another companyplaint has been made by the detenu that while the detaining authority had referred to the said C.R. No.
1984 and 11.9.1984, but did number clear the imported material.
The detenu Madan Lal Anand was arrested on 21.6.1988 under section 104 of the Customs Act for his involvement in the import, clearance and sale of polyester filament yarn and polyester fiber in the names of the above two firms and on his application he was released on bail.
The other two licences were number utilised by them.
On 9.2.
It is alleged that information was received that polyes ter filament yarn and polyester fibre imported in the name of M s. Jasmine, B 3/7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, and M s Expo International, C 224, Defence Colony, New Delhi, under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Scheme DEEC Scheme .
They were also required to manufacture the resultant products out of the imported polyester filament yarn and polyester fiber and to export out of India resultant products within a period of six months from the date of clearance of the first companysign ment of raw material in terms of the companyditions of the ad vance licences and the provision of the said Notification dated 9.6.1978.
Inves tigations have also revealed that both the firms have sold the polyester filament yarn cleared by them without payment of duty in companytravention of the provisions of the above Notification and companyditions of the advance licences.
The High Court by an elaborate judgment overruled all the companytentions made on behalf of the detenu and upheld the order of detention and dismissed the writ petition.
Again, in paragraph 28 of the grounds of detention the said C.R. No.
Although the said Naresh Chadha and Krishan Lal Chawla are stated to be the Partners of M s. Jasmine and the said Naresh Chadha to be the Proprietor of M s. Expo International, they were ciphers and the detenu had been taking out the advance licences in the benami of the said two firms.
1989, it was put up before the Joint Secretary, COFEPOSA, and was sent to the Minister of State Revenue .
M s. Expo International also imported polyester filament yarn under three advance licences without payment of customs import duty amounting to Rs.49.29 lakhs against the first licence dated 29.5.
Under this Scheme, M s. Jasmine were granted the said licences subject to the companydi tions, inter alia, that they would manufacture readymade garments resultant products out of the imported polyester filament yarn and polyester spun yarn and export the result ant products abroad within a period of six months from the date of the first clearance of the imported companysignment in terms of the companyditions of the advance licences and the companyditions of the said Notification dated 9.6.1978.
3 crores.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Criminal No.
MOS R rejected the representation subject to approv al by FM on 17.2.1989.
It is significant to numberice that in C.R. No.
The said documents orders are as follows Abeyance Order No.
222 of 1989 etc.
The grounds of detention that were served on the detenu run into several pages.
120/84 85/II dated the 27th March, 1985 issued by the Dy Chief Controller of Imports Exports to M s. Expo International under clause 8D of the Imports Control Order, 1955 as amended, placing the firm under abeyance for a period of six months w.e.f.
At the hearing of this appeal, the learned Counsel for the respondents handed over to us a list of dates showing that a number of holidays intervened between one date and another and hence the apparent delay.
1989.11.1.
It is apparent from the facts stated above that the detaining authority had before him the petitions numbered as R. No.
Writ 545/88 .
Writ 545/88 .
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
15, it has been stated that investigations companyducted by the Customs and Central Excise Staff, Chandi garh, have revealed that both the said firms have number ful filled their export obligations so far in terms of the advance licences granted to them and also in terms of the provisions of the said Notification dated 9.6.1978 as amended issued under section 125 of the Customs Act.
These appli cations have been mentioned in paragraphs 41, 42 and 43 of the grounds of detention.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
Kapil Sibal, Arvind K. Nigam and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the Petitioners.
1985, the said M s. Jasmine import ed the polyester filament yarn without payment of import duty amounting to more than Rs.
1989 and the Collectors companyment was made on 9.2.1989.
Show cause numberice dated the 26th December, 1985 issued by the office of the Chief Con troller of Imports Exports to M s. Expo International under section 4 L for action under section 4 I of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 as amended, and under clause 8 of the Imports Control Order, 1985 as amended Annexure II to Cr.
Between 25.1.1989 and 8.2.1989 a number of holidays intervened, namely, 26.1.1989 Republic Day , 28.1.1989 and 29.1.1989 Saturday and Sunday , and 4.2, 1989 and 5.2.1989 Saturday and Sunday .
So far as the detenu Madan Lal Anand is companycerned, the order of detention was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from abetting the smuggling of goods and dealing is smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or companyceal ing or keeping smuggled goods.
The rejection memo was issued on 20.2.1989.
306 of 1986 and C.R. No.
3694 of 1985.
Comments of Collector were received on 18.2.1989.
11.2.1989 12.2.1989 were holidays.
It appears that the Collector of Central Excise Customs received the represen tation for his companyments on 23.11.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab Haryana, dismissing the writ petition filed by three detenu including one Madan Lal Anand, the husband of the appellant, challenging the validity of the orders of detention, all dated September 30, 1988, passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, the detain ing authority, under section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act.
C. Mahajan, Subba Rao and P. Parmeshwaran for the Respondents.
FM rejected the repre sentation on 17.2.1989.
The file was received back after the rejection of the representation and such rejection was companymunicated to the detenu on 20.2.1989.
It is the case of the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the said firms, namely, M s. Jasmine and M s. Expo International are benami firms of the detenu including the detenu Madan Lal Anand.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. Elaborate submissions have been made by the learned Counsel for both the parties and, accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the case on its merit after granting special leave.
The order of detention along with the grounds of such detention was served on the detenu on October 18, 1988 and a declaration under section 9 of the COFEPOSA Act was made on November 2, 1988 and served on him on November 3, 1988.
1989, it was sent to the Ministry of Finance COFEPOSA CELL , New Delhi, and was received by that Ministry on 10.2.
Show cause numberice dated the 27th March, 1985 issued by the office of the Chief Con troller of Imports Exports to M s. Expo International under clause 10 for action under clause 9 1 a d of the IMPORTS Control Order, 1955 as amended as to why the five import licences should number be cancelled and rendered ineffective Annexure F to Cr.
The disposal of the above appeal means the disposal of the writ petition.Writ 545/88 .
The detaining author ity rejected the representation addressed to him on 13.2.
They had numberintention to manufac ture or export the goods, as there was neither any machinery at the so called factory premises number power companynection.
Again, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, granted bail to the detenu on 11.7.
During the last quarter of 1985 M s. Jasmine shifted their factory premises to 374, Ram Darbar, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh.
The detenu has been abetting the smuggling of the goods and also has been dealing with smuggled goods other wise than by engaging in transporting or companycealing or keeping smuggled goods.
In the applications made to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports Exports, New Delhi, for the grant of advance licences, one Naresh Chadha and Madan Lal Chadha were de clared as the Partners of M s. Jasmine and the address of their factory premises was declared as Khasra No.
