The mobile phones were found hidden in a microwave oven.
In the appellants statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, it was stated by the appellant that the appellant was an employee of M s B.D. Denim.
Prior to his detention under the impugned order, the appellant has been arrested on 5th July 2001 by the Customs officers at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on the allegation that he had smuggled 40 mobile telephones.
The representation was rejected by the respondent No.
After his arrest on 5th July 2001, the appellant was produced before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody till 19th July 2001.
He also made a representation on 17th October 2001 to the detaining authority in which he has challenged the order of detention.
The Lt.
The microwave oven as well as the mobile telephones were seized and the companylective value of the seized goods has been stated by the respondents to be Rs.5,16,000/ At the time of his arrest, the appellant handed over his passport to the customs authorities.
Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is satisfied that unless prevented you will companytinue to indulge in smuggling activities once you are released.
However, prior to this date, on 28th September 2001 the impugned order was passed under the Act and served on the appellant in jail where the appellant still is.
Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has numberhesitation in arriving at the companyclusion that you have the inclination and propensity for indulging in smuggling activities in an organised and clandestine manner and unless prevented you are likely to indulge in the smuggling activities in future.
The appellant claims that he had sent a detailed retraction of his statement as recorded on 5th July 2001 to the Finance Minister and the Chief Commissioner Customs .
The appellant then filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court challenging his detention.
The High Court dismissed the writ application on 8th May 2002.
On the basis of the foregoing facts and circumstances the Lt.
The appellant was ultimately granted bail on 29th October 2001 by the Delhi High Court.
Governor is satisfied that if you companye out on bail you are likely to indulge in the smuggling activities, in future.
The appellant had also stated that he had made six trips to Dubai between 30th May 2000 to 3rd July 2001 at the instance of the proprietor of M s B.D. Denim and that except for the first occasion, the appellant had, on the instructions of and as arranged by the proprietor of M s B.D. Denim, brought into India various household items including mobile phones.
In the impugned order of detention, after recording the facts as narrated earlier, it was stated The Lt.
The Lt.
Your passport is with the customs department but you are likely to travel clandestinely for the purpose of smuggling, hence the Lt.
Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is satisfied that it is necessary to detain you under the provisions of the Conservation of the Foreign Exchange and Prevention of the Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing you from smuggling goods in future.
The appellant thereafter made five applications for grant of bail which were rejected by the Court on 16th July, 6th August, 18th August, 6th September and 17th September 2001.
1 by an order dated 29th October 2001 and the detention order was companyfirmed for a period of one year from 29th September, 2001.
Governor is aware that the prosecution proceedings have already been initiated against you under the Customs Act, 1962 and adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 are likely to be initiated against you.
RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted.
The appellant has challenged his detention pursuant to an order dated 28th September 2001 passed under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
In the meantime on 3rd September, 2001 a companyplaint was lodged by the Customs Department against the appellant for offences punishable under Section 132 and 135 1 a of the Customs Act, 1962.
On the date of his arrest the appellant retracted his statement made under Section 108 before the Magistrate and alleged that the statement has been forcibly taken by the Custom officers after beating him.
The proprietor of M s B. D. Denim in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, however, denied that he had any business relationship with the appellant and also denied that he had any knowledge of the appellants trips to Dubai.
The Metropolitan Magistrate took companynizance of the same and the proceedings are pending.
