Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2002 (11) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2002 (11) TMI 681 - SC - Companies Law


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.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates