2006 (7) TMI 658 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the impugned detention order under COFEPOSA Act.
2. Non-supply of shipping bills and its impact on the right to make an effective representation.
3. Alleged delay in passing the detention order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Impugned Detention Order under COFEPOSA Act:
The petitioner sought the quashing of the detention order dated 30.11.2004 under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, claiming it had ramifications under SAFEMA and other statutes. The petitioner was initially arrested for fraudulent availment of export incentives and was granted bail on 7.7.2004. The detention order was challenged on the grounds that it was based on fraudulent activities involving the creation of multiple firms to avail export incentives illegally. The grounds of detention detailed the petitioner's modus operandi, including the creation of benami firms, over-invoicing of goods, and fraudulent claims of duty drawback and DEPB benefits amounting to Rs. 19,94,13,343.

2. Non-Supply of Shipping Bills and its Impact on the Right to Make an Effective Representation:
The petitioner argued that the non-supply of shipping bills, which were crucial documents, hindered his ability to make an effective representation. The petitioner claimed discrepancies in the figures of duty drawback and DEPB benefits across various documents, which left him unable to tender an accurate explanation. The court examined the legal position and referenced the Supreme Court's decision in J. Abdul Hakim v. State of Tamil Nadu, which clarified that non-supply of every document mentioned does not necessarily vitiate the detention order. The court found that the shipping bills were not relied upon documents but referred documents, and all relevant details from the shipping bills were provided, thus not impairing the petitioner's right to make an effective representation.

3. Alleged Delay in Passing the Detention Order:
The petitioner contended that there was undue delay in passing the detention order, as he was arrested on 8th May 2004, and the detention order was passed on 30.11.2004. The court noted that the investigation involved extensive searches, collection of massive evidence, and recording of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The proposal for preventive detention was made on 20.9.2004, and the statement of two associates was recorded on 27th October 2004. The court concluded that the delay was justified given the complexity of the case and did not affect the purpose of preventive detention.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the non-supply of shipping bills did not prejudice the petitioner's right to make an effective representation. The delay in passing the detention order was justified due to the extensive investigation required. The detention order under COFEPOSA Act was upheld based on the detailed grounds of detention and the substantial evidence presented.