9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detained by an order dated 20th October, 2003 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Revenue, New Delhi purported to be under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the COFEPOSA Act'). 3.The grounds of detention indicate that the said order of detention was passed primarily on two allegations, viz.; (a) the export consignment was misdeclared stating it to be alloy steel forging (machined) although actually the same was a metal scrap; and (b) the goods were over invoiced as the value thereof was declared by the exporter to be Rs. 170-175 per kg instead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act, the Board although approved the order of detention of Vinod Kumar Garg and Narsi Dass Garg, the detention of Mudit Kumar Tiwari was not approved. 7.Questioning the said order of detention, the Appellant herein as also the aforementioned Narsi Dass Garg filed two writ petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Both the petitions were dismissed by reason of the impugned order. Hence this appeal. 8.Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant had raised a number of contentions in support of this appeal. The learned Counsel would firstly submit that from the averments made in the show cause notice dated 20th August, 2004 issued by the Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... activity at the hands of the detenu in future is possible as he had already surrendered his 'exporter importer code' before the authorities incapacitating himself from doing export import business. 13.Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, however, supported the order of detention. 14.In view of the fact that we find force in the first contention of Mr. Subramaniam, it may not be necessary for us to advert to the other submissions advanced by the learned counsel. 15.It is not in dispute that one of the allegations made against the detenu in the grounds of detention was that he had exported consignment upon misdeclaration to the effect that alloy steel forging (machined) was being exported whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t leave any manner of doubt whatsoever that upon chemical analysis of materials, it was found that the samples were made up of alloy steel. It has not been disputed before us that the alleged goods which are subject matter of the export were seized in presence of the detenu and were sent for chemical analysis before CRCL. Upon obtaining a report dated 23-10-2003, it appears, that the samples were made up of alloy steel although the test report could not throw any light as to whether the goods were alloy steel forging (machined), as declared by the exporter. The subject matter of the consignment, therefore, was not scrap metal. Had the detaining authority waited for the results of the said chemical analysis before issuing the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
