2004 (8) TMI 714 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act.
2. Legality of continued detention of the detenu.
3. Failure of the detaining authority to consider statutory provisions and facts properly.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act
The detention order was challenged by the wife of the detenu, P. Mariaselvam, under Section 3(1)(ii) of the COFEPOSA Act, alleging that he was detained to prevent him from abetting smuggling activities. The detenu, an Assistant Officer at Air India, was intercepted with concealed Intel Pentium 4 Computer Processors, which he had retrieved from the aircraft based on prior arrangements with a passenger named Murugan. The detention order was passed to prevent him from further abetting smuggling activities, as the goods were brought into India in contravention of Customs Act provisions.

Issue 2: Legality of continued detention of the detenu
The petitioner argued that since the main person involved in smuggling, Murugan, had been released, the detenu's continued detention was illegal and amounted to punishment. However, the Government Advocate contended that the detenu had successfully retrieved multiple concealed consignments, thus justifying his detention under the COFEPOSA Act to prevent future abetment of smuggling activities.

Issue 3: Failure of the detaining authority to consider statutory provisions and facts properly
The detaining authority was accused of failing to properly consider statutory provisions and facts in arriving at the decision to detain the detenu. The petitioner cited a previous case where it was held that transporting and disposing of smuggled goods do not amount to smuggling under the COFEPOSA Act. However, the court found that the detenu's involvement in abetting smuggling activities, as an Assistant Officer at Air India, justified his detention to prevent future smuggling activities. The court concluded that the detention order was valid, considering the detenu's role and actions in the smuggling operation.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act and rejecting the arguments against the legality of the detenu's continued detention. The court found that the detaining authority had considered all relevant factors and statutory provisions in passing the detention order, thereby justifying the preventive detention of the detenu to prevent future abetment of smuggling activities.