On a perusal of the order of detention it would appear that goods seized were found to be mis declared as to their nature and value.
It is the case of the petitioner that the first statement of the detenu was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act by the officers of the DRI on March 29, 2005.
While the scrutiny was undertaken, further generated documents were received on September 12, 2005.
It appeared from the record that on October 21, 2005 she had made an endorsement for issuance of detention orders against the detenu and others, but numbersuch orders were issued.
She must have received the proposal for the detention of the detenu between April 12, 2005 and September 1.2, 2005 that is the date of release of the detenu on bail and the date of receipt of further generated documents as mentioned in para 28 of the impugned grounds of detention.
Thereafter, several statements of his were recorded, the last on April 28, 2005.
On a companysideration of all the material placed before her the detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner had played a very crucial role in perpetuating the whole fraud on the revenue alongwith two others.
Some of the seized goods were goods cleared without payment of Central Excise duty from factories declaring them as meant for export but diverted to local market.
The remarks of the sponsoring authority were called on the representations which was forwarded by the sponsoring authority on December 13, 2005.
In the meantime, further generated documents were received from the sponsoring authority on November 18, 2005, apart from receipt of pre detention representations made by the petitioner on November 24, 2005 and November 25, 2005.
The detenu had, therefore, actively aided and abetted the smuggling of the goods as defined by Section 2 39 of the Customs Act, 1962, and as adopted in the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 vide Section 2 e thereof.
Chandra Iyengar, who was empowered to act as the detaining authority under the Act only on January 10, 2006 and who issued the impugned order of detention on January 27, 2006.
In the meantime, the sponsoring authority forwarded further generated documents on December 13, 2005 and December 25, 2005.
The file was submitted before the Under Secretary on November 29, 2005, who after giving his endorsement forwarded it to the Deputy Secretary on November 29, 2005.
In the companyresponding airway bills the goods were described as Industrial Raw Material as against their specific names.
On October 21, 2005, the then detaining authority gave her endorsement with instruction to issue orders in respect of all three detenus.
The proposal ran into 778 pages, and apart from the detenu, there were proposals for detention of two other persons involved.
Thereafter, the sponsoring authority forwarded the proposal to the office of the then detaining authority which was received on July 7, 2005.
The then detaining authority instructed her office to make a chart stating the extent of involvement of each of the three proposed detenus and the role played by them.
The detaining authority found that the companyplete set of documents were number enclosed and therefore, companyplete set of documents was called for from the sponsoring authority on July 11, 2005 which was forwarded on the same day.
Similarly, the statements of his accomplices were also recorded between March and June, 2005.
Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the well organized manner in which the detenu was engaged in prejudicial activities, with a view to prevent him in future from abetting smuggling of good, it was necessary to detain him under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
Accordingly, a numbere was prepared and submitted on the next day before the Under Secretary who immediately forwarded it to the Deputy Secretary, who after giving his endorsement forwarded the file to the then detaining authority.
The Screening Committee in its meeting held on June 14, 2005 approved the said proposal.
On January 10, 2006 the impugned order of detention was passed.
Despite this Neela Satyanarayana did number issue any order of detention against the detenu.
The impugned order of detention was issued by Smt.
The detenu was arrested on March 30, 2005 in companynection with a criminal case registered against him but he, as well as one of his accomplices, was released on bail on April 12, 2005.
The order of detention has been challenged mainly on three grounds namely, delay in passing the order of detention, number application of mind by the detaining authority and supply of documents in a language which he did number understand.
P. Singh, J. The instant Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner Sheetal Manoj Gore, wife of Manoj Arjun Gore the detenu impugning the order of detention passed under Section 3 1 of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 on January 27, 2006.
