RAJ KUMAR Vs. UOI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner challenges the preventive detention of his brother, Dharmender Jhethwani, son of Late Asa Ram, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short "COFEPOSA"). The said impugned Order is dated 18.2.2008 and is accompanied by the "Grounds" of even date on which the said Order is predicated. Briefly stated, the Detenu had reported at the Red Channel of Customs, Delhi at 2330 hours on 17th October, 2007 and had declared the total value of goods sought to be imported by him as his baggage at Rupees Sixty Thousand. Since the conduct of the Detenu was found to be suspicious by the officers of the Customs Department, an inspection was carried out of the three checked-in-baggages and two hand-baggages carried by the Petitioner/Detenu. It is not in dispute that the items and quantities declared by the Petitioner/Detenu in the Embarkation Form were found drastically less than what was actually contained in the baggage. The Customs Department assessed the duty at Rupees Nine Lac Eighty Thousand and Fifty Only instead of Rupees Sixty Thousand mentioned by the Detenu. The Department took note of the fact that between the period August, 2004 and October, 2007 (that is a period of three years and two months) the Detenu had made as many as fifty-one journeys, of very short duration, to Thailand and two journeys to Hong Kong. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the Detenu, has conceded that the Detenu made his livelihood by purchasing goods abroad and thereafter importing them into India in his personal baggage. He has however argued that this is a legitimate livelihood since imports can be freely made on payment of the duty attracted against such importation.

(2.) It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the Detenu that the procedure adopted by the Department was not in consonance with law. We may only record that the Detenu was unable to produce any document evidencing the price actually paid by him either before the Department or in these proceedings. Furthermore, as already mentioned above, the declaration made by the Detenu was incorrect inasmuch as the quantity of items mentioned by him were much less than what was contained in his baggage; and items such as fifty metres of suit length and fifty pieces of processors were not mentioned at all. In these proceedings we are not concerned with the quantum of duty quantified by the Department as that can be assailed in proceedings specifically provided for that purpose.

(3.) Where there has been a substantial mis-declaration, Section 111(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "Customs Act") which deals with confiscation of improperly imported goods renders goods liable for confiscation if they are not included or are in excess of those included in the entry made under the Act, or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under Section 77 thereof. It seems to us that Mr. Jain is not correct in drawing our attention to Section 111(m) of the Customs Act which speaks of the valuation of imported goods.