9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no material to invoke the powers under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. The impugned order of detention is, therefore, unsustainable in the absence of any such material that the HSD was smuggled, petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and set aside and it is directed to release the detenu - 2652 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 16-6-2010 - B.H. Marlapalle and Anoop V. Mohta, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Mrs. A.M.Z. Ansari, Counsel, for the Petitioner. Shri D.P. Adsule, APP, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : B.H. Marlapalle, J. (Oral)]. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the detention order dated 6-8-2009 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as found: Sr. No. Tug HSD Quantity Value (Rs.) 1. MT Baaz 61.294 Kilo Litres 13,48,468/- 2. MT Mansi 56.835 Kilo Litres 12,50,376/- 3. MT Sarsar 34.588 Kilo Litres 7,60,941/-. 4. The amount of duty evaded came to approximately Rs. 6.60 lakhs and no documents were produced in support of HSD found in the tugs. The tugs were seized under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The chemical analysis of the seized product conformed to the specifications of HSD and it was disposed to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. as per the procedure. The statements recorded on 20-2-2009 of the four crew members of MT Baaz ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts on 25-2-2009 and it was considered by the detaining authority along with its rebuttal on 26-2-2009 before the detention order was passed. 5. The affidavits-in-reply have been filed by Mrs. Medha Gadgil, Principal Secretary (Appeals Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and the Detaining Authority and Mrs. Anna Dani, the then Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security) and the Detaining Authority who had passed the detention order dated 6-8-2009. 6. Though a number of grounds have been raised to challenge the order of detention, Mrs. Ansari, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed for the following grounds, - (a) There was no material before the Detaining Authority that the HSD alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been specifically relied upon. The relevant portion of Section 111 of the Customs Act is, therefore, reproduced as under, - 111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. - The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable for confiscation:- (a) any goods imported by sea or air which are unloaded or attempted to be unloaded at any place other than a customs port or customs airport appointed under clause (a) of section 7 for the unloading of such goods; (b) ......... (c) ......... (d) any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian customs waters for the purpose of being imported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh to justify the order of preventive detention and the order of detention cannot be supported on hearsay evidence. 8. On this preliminary issue as to whether the HSD confiscated was smuggled, Mr. Adsule, the learned APP sought to refer to the recorded statements of some of crew members on MT Baaz. In all these statements it was contended that they had heard from a third person that the High Speed Diesel was imported but the statement of any of these third persons was not recorded. Mr. Adsule, the learned APP fairly conceded that there was no statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act which would support the basic requirement that the HSD confiscated was smuggled. In the absence of any such material to point that HSD was smug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
