2012 (10) TMI 504 - SC - Customs

Fear of likely order of preventive detention - Held that - in view of the fact that the threatened arrest of the petitioner is based on the allegation of customs violations, it would be appropriate for the State Government to obtain the comments of the Settlement Commission before any final order is passed. If the detention of the petitioner is being considered only on the basis of the recommendations of the Customs Department, the State of Maharashtra is directed, to seek the comments of the Settlement Commission, before passing any order of preventive detention against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Apprehension of preventive detention based on proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission in customs-related disputes.
3. Requirement for State Government to seek comments of the Settlement Commission before preventive detention order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner expressed fear of preventive detention due to proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner accepted liability and deposited alleged customs duty with the Settlement Commission. The counsel requested the State Government to consult the Settlement Commission before any preventive detention decision.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that all customs disputes were under the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction, as evidenced by an order dated 8.10.2012 (Annexure P 25). The Court found the fear of preventive detention to be unsubstantiated and deemed it unnecessary to summon respondents.

3. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit their passport with the Settlement Commission within five days and undertake to be available as required. It emphasized that if preventive detention was being considered based on Customs Department recommendations, the State Government must obtain the Settlement Commission's comments before any detention order.

Conclusion:
The Court disposed of the writ petition, highlighting the importance of involving the Settlement Commission in customs-related matters before any preventive detention decision. The judgment aimed to ensure fairness and proper procedure in addressing the petitioner's apprehensions, emphasizing the need for consultation with the Settlement Commission before any drastic measures were taken.