2006 (3) TMI 173 - SC - Customs

Whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention? Held that - The delay caused in this case in issuing the order of detention has not been explained. In fact, no reason in that behalf whatsoever has been assigned at all.Admittedly, furthermore, the status report called for from the Customs Department has not been taken into consideration by the competent authorities. Thus the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order.
2. Delay in issuing the detention order.
3. Consideration of relevant material by the detaining authority.
4. Allegations of torture and coercion.
5. Compliance with export obligations.
6. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
7. Discrimination in detention recommendations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Detention Order:
The appellant, an industrialist involved in manufacturing exportable goods, was detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under allegations of smuggling. The High Court upheld the detention order, stating that the detaining authority considered all evidence, including the appellant's statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act and his subsequent retraction. The court found the activities of the appellant to fall within the definition of "smuggling" under Section 2(39) of the Customs Act read with Section 2(e) of the COFEPOSA Act.

2. Delay in Issuing the Detention Order:
The High Court ruled that the delay in issuing the detention order was not fatal, asserting that delay alone cannot invalidate a detention order. However, the Supreme Court found that the delay in this case was unexplained and significant, which questioned the genuineness of the detaining authority's satisfaction. The court cited precedents indicating that unexplained delays can sever the causal connection between prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention.

3. Consideration of Relevant Material by the Detaining Authority:
The appellant argued that the detaining authority failed to consider a status report from the Customs Department, which negated the need for detention. The Supreme Court noted that the status report was an internal correspondence and was not relied upon in the detention order. However, the court emphasized that relevant material must be considered by the detaining authority, and failure to do so can invalidate the detention order.

4. Allegations of Torture and Coercion:
The appellant claimed that his statements were obtained under torture and coercion during his detention. Medical evidence supported the appellant's claims of physical injuries. The High Court dismissed this as a ground for quashing the detention order, stating that filing a criminal complaint does not inherently prove mala fide intent behind the detention order.

5. Compliance with Export Obligations:
The appellant contended that his export obligations were fulfilled, as evidenced by redemption certificates issued by the DGFT. The High Court held that the issuance of redemption certificates does not necessarily prove compliance with export obligations, as violations could be discovered later.

6. Subjective Satisfaction of the Detaining Authority:
The High Court found that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was based on sufficient material. The Supreme Court, however, questioned the detaining authority's satisfaction due to the unexplained delay and failure to consider the status report from the Customs Department.

7. Discrimination in Detention Recommendations:
The appellant argued that there was discrimination in not recommending the detention of another individual, Shital Vij, whose recommendation was rejected by the Screening Committee. The High Court found no discrimination, as the decision was based on the Screening Committee's rejection.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the detention order, highlighting the unexplained delay in issuing the order and the failure to consider relevant material. The court emphasized that such delays and omissions can invalidate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, rendering the detention order unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the detention order was quashed.

← Previous Next →