H.S. MOHANAMBA W/O YELLAIAH Vs. MS. VATSALA WATSA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, HOME DEPARTMENT, THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, UNION OF INDIA (UOI), MINISTRY OF FINANCE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by one Smt. H.S. Mohanamba, W/o. Yellaiah, challenging the detention order dated 14.7.2006 issued by the first respondent in terms of the provisions of COFEPOSA. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the 4th respondent to set at liberty the COFEPOSA detenue R. Yellaiah.

(2.) THE facts narrated in the Writ Petition are as under:

(3.) STATE Government has filed a counter affidavit opposing the petition. The State Government would say that one Sri. Riazuddin took delivery of the parcel and he was intercepted. On detail examination of the parcel, it was revealed that all the parcels contain Random Access Memory cards of different capacity used in computers. On verification, it was noticed that the above four mentioned parcels were cleared without payment of customs duty and thus the residence of Abdul Kader was searched. A mahazar was drawn. Proceedings were held and the statements of various witnesses were recorded including Sri. Yellaiah. The State Government says that M/s. Acuta Spectra Inc. Bangalore through its Proprietor Sri. Ammasi, in a letter, stated that he is ready and willing to pay the applicable customs duty and requested for immediate release of the seized goods. Thereafter, the detenue was placed under suspension and an investigation was ordered. According to the State Government, it is clear that M/s. Acuta Spectra Inc. was set up by a fictitious person Abdul Kader to facilitate smuggling of computer parts, which were received from Singapore and the computer parts attract a total 20.97% customs duty. The clearance of speedy post parcels containing the computer parts without examination has caused huge loss to the Government. The seized articles valued at Rs. 1.17 crores and customs duty of Rs. 19 lakhs was approximately supposed to be collected from the importer which the detenue has failed to do. The State Government says that the detenue has committed an act of smuggling in terms of the averments made in the counter affidavit. It was in those circumstances, he was kept under detention.