2019 (7) TMI 1927 - HC - Customs

Validity of detention order - section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (COFEPOSA) - HELD THAT - It is observed from the orders dated 28.03.2019 and 05.04.2019 annexed at page Nos.88 and 90 respectively that the petitioner had appeared before the learned CMM in the proceedings on those dates. Despite that the detention order which had been rendered on 26.03.2019 was not executed upon him on behalf of the official respondents. It is directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to detention orders under COFEPOSA
2. Allegation of belated and non-application of mind in detention orders

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to the challenge against detention orders issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The petitioner, represented by Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Senior Counsel, was arrested under the Customs Act and subsequently released on bail. The petitioner's firm was also included in the Denied Entity List by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade. The detention orders in question were dated 26.03.2019 and 21.05.2019 under COFEPOSA. The petitioner argued that these orders were belated and lacked proper application of mind.

2. During the hearing, the court observed that despite the petitioner's appearances in proceedings before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the detention order issued on 26.03.2019 had not been executed by the official respondents. In light of this, the court directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner until the next date of hearing. The court emphasized the need for proper execution of detention orders and ensured that the petitioner was not subjected to any coercive measures pending further proceedings.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the challenge to detention orders under COFEPOSA and the court's intervention to prevent coercive action against the petitioner due to the non-execution of the detention order.