Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2002 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (11) TMI 681 - SC - Companies LawWhether there can be detention on a solitary instance would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, on the magnitude of the case and other attendant circumstances? Held that - Petition dismissed. Considering the number of trips he had made out of the country, the volume of goods seized now and the prima facie misdeclaration of value, an inference can be drawn that the detenu was a part of bigger network in bringing the goods for commercial distribution inside the country by avoiding the payment of duty. In this background, absence of passport will not be a handicap to the detenu for his activities in the present case in which the fact situation is different from the one available in Rajesh Gulati s case. Nor can we confine the meaning of the word smuggling only to going out of country and coming back with goods which are contraband or to evade duty but may encourage such activities as well by dealing in such goods
Issues:
1. Delay in forwarding representation to the Government. 2. Non-translation of documents in Tamil. 3. Lack of evidence regarding ownership of seized baggage. 4. Detention based on a solitary instance of alleged smuggling. Issue 1: Delay in forwarding representation to the Government The petitioner contended that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in forwarding his representation to the Government after it was sent to the President of India. The Court noted that the representation was received in a regional language, causing a delay in translation and forwarding. The Court considered the volume of petitions received and the translation process, concluding that the delay of 20 days was not excessive. The Court found that the Ministry of Finance had adequately explained the delay, rejecting the argument that the representation to the President was deliberate to create grounds for delay. Issue 2: Non-translation of documents in Tamil The detenu argued that documents, especially a customs declaration card, were not translated into Tamil, which was essential as he did not know English. The Court held that since the detenu had filled the declaration himself and was aware of its contents, the lack of a Tamil translation did not invalidate the document's furnishing. The Court distinguished this situation from previous cases where translations were deemed necessary, stating that in this case, the detenu's knowledge of the document's contents rendered translation unnecessary. Issue 3: Lack of evidence regarding ownership of seized baggage The detenu claimed that the absence of baggage and claim tags on one of the seized baggages raised doubts about his ownership. The authorities argued that the detenu's customs declaration and the baggage tags indicated his ownership. The Court found that the detenu's declaration and the presence of baggage tags contradicted his claim of no evidence of ownership. The Court dismissed the detenu's argument, stating that there was no lack of application of mind by the authorities in this matter. Issue 4: Detention based on a solitary instance of alleged smuggling The detenu argued that detention based on a single instance of alleged smuggling was unjustified, especially considering the seizure of his passport. The authorities asserted that the detenu's frequent trips abroad and the volume of seized goods suggested his involvement in a larger smuggling network. The Court held that the detenu's activities indicated a pattern of potential smuggling for commercial distribution, justifying his detention. The Court rejected the detenu's reliance on a case involving passport retention, stating that the circumstances of this case differed. In conclusion, the Court dismissed all contentions raised by the detenu, upholding the preventive detention order against him.
|