9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (Cofeposa). 2. Legality of the search and seizure conducted by Customs Officers. 3. Confiscation of Indian currency amounting to Rs. 27,180/-. 4. Petitioner's non-appearance in response to summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 5. Grounds for interference by the Writ Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Detention Order under Cofeposa The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to prevent the enforcement of a detention order under Cofeposa, arguing that there was no material to justify such an order. The court cited the principles governing interference by the Writ Court, emphasizing that it should not normally interfere before the detention order is served and the person is detained unless it is an exceptional case where there is no material to justify the detention. The court referred to the Division Bench judgment in Kanailal Bhagnani v. Union of India, which held that interference is warranted only in rare cases where the order appears to be ab initio void. 2. Legality of the Search and Seizure Conducted by Customs Officers The petitioner's premises were searched, and Rs. 27,180/- was seized. The petitioner argued that the search was conducted in his absence and that the statements obtained from his employee were under duress. The Customs Officers, however, maintained that the search was lawful and resulted in the seizure of Indian currency believed to be the sale proceeds of smuggled gold. The court noted that the search and seizure were conducted in accordance with law, and the petitioner's non-appearance in response to summons further complicated his position. 3. Confiscation of Indian Currency Amounting to Rs. 27,180/- The petitioner contested the confiscation of Rs. 27,180/-, claiming it was part of his business cash in hand. The Customs authorities argued that the amount was the sale proceeds of smuggled gold. The court observed that the petitioner had not obtained any stay on the proceedings before the Customs authorities, and the order for confiscation was made after the present application. The court held that the petitioner had the remedy of appealing against the confiscation order under the Customs Act. 4. Petitioner's Non-Appearance in Response to Summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act The petitioner failed to appear in response to multiple summonses issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The court noted that the petitioner did not provide any lawful excuse for his non-appearance, which further weakened his case. 5. Grounds for Interference by the Writ Court The court reiterated that interference by the Writ Court is warranted only in exceptional cases where there is no material to justify the detention order. The court found that there were sufficient materials, including the recovery of anklets used for smuggling gold and statements from various individuals, to justify the detention order under Cofeposa. The court held that it was not appropriate to interfere at this stage, as the grounds for detention had not yet been served on the petitioner. Conclusion The court dismissed the application, vacated all interim orders, and held that the petitioner could make a fresh application if he is detained and if the grounds for detention do not warrant his detention. The court also noted that the petitioner had the remedy of appealing against the confiscation order under the Customs Act.
|
