9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to detention order u/s 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA Act.
Details of the judgment: 1. The detenu arrived at Chennai Airport from Brussels with gold coins concealed in his pant pockets, leading to his interception by Customs Officers. Despite having an invoice, the detenu did not declare the gold, resulting in its seizure under Mahazar. 2. The detenu's confession statement confirmed his attempt to smuggle gold coins without a valid license, leading to his arrest and remand by the Magistrate. 3. Subsequently, a notice was issued for the confiscation of the gold coins under the Customs Act for attempted smuggling. 4. The Government initiated proceedings u/s 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA Act, detaining the detenu to prevent future smuggling activities based on subjective satisfaction and consideration of all relevant facts. 5. The detenu challenged the detention order, arguing that he intended to declare the gold for his daughter's marriage and that the detaining authority did not adequately consider the adjudication order prior to detention. 6. The detaining authority justified the detention based on the likelihood of the detenu engaging in future smuggling activities despite the impounding of his passport. 7. The Court considered the submissions and materials on record, acknowledging the detenu's transit status and the Customs Department's perspective on the attempted smuggling. 8. While the detenu claimed he was about to declare the gold, the Customs Department had already confiscated it for non-declaration, offering an option of redemption through penalty payment. 9. The Detaining Authority's consideration of the adjudication order and the likelihood of the detenu's future involvement in smuggling activities were key factors in upholding the detention order. 10. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized the need for sufficient material to justify preventive detention, especially when a passport is impounded, concluding that the detaining authority lacked acceptable evidence for the detenu's potential future smuggling activities. 11. Consequently, the Court set aside the detention order, allowing the detenu's immediate release unless required in connection with another case.
|
