2014 (4) TMI 1161 - HC - Customs

Continuity of lookout notice - the petitioner s grievance is that despite the quashing of the detention he is subjected to harassment. It is urged that continued operation of the lookout notice dated 1-9-2010 the authority of which has been continued and reiterated in subsequent letters and communications infringes his right to travel abroad and also enjoyment of his life. Held that - The rational for the lookout notice which was to facilitate the detention order pursuant to the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (COFEPOSA) ceased on 30-4-2013 itself. During the hearing the respondents were unable to point out the existence of any independent statutory power which enables issuance of any lookout notice which otherwise causes immense harassment to persons wishing to travel especially travel abroad - the Court is satisfied that the lookout notice cannot survive any longer and the same has to be quashed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Continuation of lookout notice against petitioner after detention order quashed.
2. Legality of continued operation of lookout notice infringing petitioner's rights.
3. Co-operation of petitioner in proceedings post detention order quashed.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner raised concerns regarding the continued existence of a lookout notice issued against him on 1-9-2010 by the respondent even after the detention order against him was quashed by the Court on 30-4-2013. The original detention order was based on allegations of smuggling articles valued over Rs. 24.68 crores. The petitioner was eventually arrested on 1-12-2012 and challenged the detention order through Article 226 proceedings. The Court found that the failure to inform the detaining authority about the retraction of the petitioner's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act vitiated the detention order, leading to its quashing.

2. Despite the quashing of the detention order, the petitioner argued that the continued operation of the lookout notice infringed his right to travel abroad and his overall enjoyment of life. The respondent contended that the petitioner's actions, including recording a fresh inculpatory statement on 6-8-2010 after the retraction of the initial statement, justified the lookout notice. However, the Court noted that the rationale for the lookout notice, facilitating the detention order under COFEPOSA, ceased to exist after the detention order was quashed. The Court emphasized that the lookout notice caused harassment to individuals desiring to travel, especially abroad, and found no independent statutory power enabling its issuance post the quashing of the detention order. The Court held that the lookout notice was unauthorized by law and ordered its quashing, allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.

3. The Court considered the petitioner's cooperation in proceedings post the quashing of the detention order. While acknowledging that enforcement proceedings for penalties and duty recovery were available to Customs authorities, the Court emphasized that lack of cooperation post-adjudication could not justify actions not authorized by law. The Court concluded that the lookout notice, lacking statutory basis post the quashing of the detention order, had to be quashed, ensuring the petitioner's rights were upheld.