1990 (9) TMI 341 - SC - Customs

Whether or not there existed compelling circumstances to pass the impugned orders of detention? Held that - The detention orders clearly state that the power is being exercised with a view to preventing the smuggling of goods referrable to clause (i) of the subsection. Merely because the number of that clause is not mentioned, it can make no difference whatsoever. So also we see no merit in the contention that the value of goods seized varies in the grounds of detention from that mentioned in the panchnama or appraisal report. How that has prejudiced the detenus is difficult to compre- hend in the absence of any material on record. The submis- sion that the declaration under section 9(1) was required to be communicated within five weeks from the date of its making is not specifically raised in the writ petitions nor was it argued before the High Court. We were, however, told that the declaration was communicated in the first week of January 1990, a statement which was not contested on behalf of the petitioners. In fact the submission was not pursued after this fact was disclosed. We also see no merit in it. Lastly, it was said that the authority had failed to take notice of the retraction of the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. In fact there is a specific reference to the retraction letter dated 12th October, 1989 and the subsequent letter of 19th October, 1989, wherein the detenus stated that they had signed the letter of 12th October, 1989 without knowing the contents thereof and had in fact not disowned their earlier statement of 5th October, 1989. It is clear from the above that this challenge is also without substance. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in dealing with the detenus' representations.
2. Validity of detention orders while the detenus were already in custody.
3. Failure to supply crucial documents to the detenus.
4. Validity of the declaration under Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Dealing with the Detenus' Representations:
The petitioners contended that there was an inordinate delay in rejecting the detenus' representations dated 18th December 1989, which were rejected on 30th January 1990. The Court examined the timeline and found that the representations were received by the COFEPOSA Unit on 28th December 1989, forwarded to the sponsoring authority on 29th December 1989, and comments were received by 9th January 1990. The Finance Minister took the decision to reject the representations on 16th January 1990, and the memo of rejection was dispatched on 18th January 1990. The Court concluded that there was no delay attributable to the detaining authority and that postal delays could not be blamed on the authorities. Thus, the contention of delay was rejected.

2. Validity of Detention Orders While the Detenus Were Already in Custody:
The petitioners argued that there was no compelling reason to pass detention orders as the detenus were already in custody. The Court noted that the detaining authority was aware of the detenus' custody status and had reason to believe that they would secure bail and engage in similar prejudicial activities if released. The Court cited several precedents, including Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar and Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India, stating that detention orders can be validly passed against individuals in custody if there is reliable material indicating a real possibility of their release and subsequent engagement in prejudicial activities. The Court found that the detaining authority's inference was justified based on the material on record and upheld the detention orders.

3. Failure to Supply Crucial Documents to the Detenus:
The petitioners claimed that the authorities failed to supply copies of the declarations made by the detenus before the customs authorities and search warrants, which impaired their right to make an effective representation. The Court observed that the declarations were neither relied upon nor referred to in the grounds of detention, and the search authorizations were not used as a basis for the detention grounds. The Court held that mere mention of certain searches in the grounds did not entitle the detenus to copies of the search authorizations, especially when they were not relevant to the detention. The Court concluded that the non-supply of these documents did not impair the detenus' right to make an effective representation and upheld the High Court's view.

4. Validity of the Declaration under Section 9(1) of the Act:
The petitioners challenged the declaration under Section 9(1) on the ground that the second respondent failed to forward copies of the documents relied upon for the declaration. The Court found that the second respondent relied only on the grounds of detention and the material already served on the detenus. The Court rejected the argument that these documents needed to be supplied afresh, stating that such a requirement would result in wasteful duplication. The Court also dismissed other minor grounds of challenge, including the failure to mention the specific clause of Section 3(1) in the detention orders and variations in the value of goods seized, as they did not prejudice the detenus.

The Court concluded that all the contentions raised by the petitioners lacked merit and dismissed the special leave petitions as well as the writ petitions.

← Previous Next →