2015 (10) TMI 832 - HC - Customs

Necessity for Detention of Passport Petitioner alleged for smuggling Suspected the presence of Gold in Home Appliances bought Held That - Authority vested with Customs to detain passport under S. 110(3) no longer remains res integra and act of respondents is not without any authority. Even according to the respondents, detention of the passport of the petitioner, incorporated as one of the conditions in Ext. P3 order granting bail, is only to ensure availability of the petitioner till the investigation is completed. This can be ensured by such other means or measures as well. Detention of the passport virtually disables the petitioner from pursuing his business and earning his living, apart from adversely affecting his right to meet the family, who are settled at Dubai. Passport could be released subject to furnishing adequate security, either in the form of immovable property or Bank Guarantee to the satisfaction of the respondents, till the proceedings are finalised Decided partly in favour of the Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Detention of passport under Customs Act - Justification and legality.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a businessperson holding an Indian Passport, had his passport detained by Customs authorities pending investigation for alleged smuggling. The petitioner's baggage was intercepted upon arrival from Dubai, and home appliances containing suspected gold were seized. The petitioner, denying any wrongdoing, faced arrest and bail conditions requiring passport surrender. The petitioner challenged the detention through a writ petition, citing undue hardship on family and business due to the passport confiscation.

The Customs authorities justified the passport detention under Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, citing the relevance of the passport to ongoing investigations into gold smuggling. The petitioner's involvement in the alleged smuggling was supported by seized samples showing gold content and connections to other suspects. The authorities argued that detaining the passport was crucial to ensuring the petitioner's cooperation and presence during the investigation.

The Court acknowledged the legal authority of Customs to detain passports under Section 110(3) based on previous judgments. However, the Court considered the necessity of the detention in this case, balancing the petitioner's rights with investigative requirements. Emphasizing the right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court directed the release of the passport upon the petitioner providing adequate security to cover potential liabilities if found guilty.

In conclusion, the Court ordered the release of the passport upon the petitioner furnishing suitable security, ensuring cooperation with the investigation, and maintaining communication via email. The decision aimed to balance investigative needs with the petitioner's rights, allowing for the resumption of business activities and family interactions abroad while safeguarding potential liabilities.