1982 (8) TMI 56 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the detention order under COFEPOSA based on past activities of the detenu.
2. Whether preventive detention was necessary despite the possibility of prosecution for past infractions of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the release of the detenu, who was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The detention order was based on the detenu's past activities, including contraventions of the Customs Act in 1973 and subsequent seizures of smuggled goods in 1982. The petitioner challenged the validity of the detention order, arguing that the past acts were stale and that preventive detention was unwarranted.

2. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties. The petitioner contended that the detenu's past infractions of the Customs Act were not sufficient grounds for preventive detention under COFEPOSA. However, the Deputy Government Advocate argued that the detenu's history of dealing in smuggled goods, despite prior penalties and notifications, justified the preventive detention to prevent future smuggling activities. The court noted that the detenu's possession of significant quantities of smuggled goods in 1982, despite prior warnings and penalties, supported the necessity of preventive detention.

3. The court emphasized that the detenu's status as a dealer in foreign goods and the lack of satisfactory explanations for the possession of smuggled goods reinforced the need for preventive detention. Referring to previous judgments, the court highlighted that a single act of smuggling could indicate a tendency to repeat such offenses in the future, justifying preventive detention. The court concluded that the detaining authority had valid reasons to believe that detention was necessary to prevent the detenu from engaging in smuggling activities.

4. In light of the arguments and precedents cited, the court dismissed the petition challenging the detention order under COFEPOSA. The court held that the detaining authority's decision to opt for preventive detention, considering the detenu's past activities and the likelihood of future smuggling, was justified. The court found no legal basis to overturn the detention order and ruled against the petitioner, with no costs awarded in the case.