S VENKETRAMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The bare minimum facts required for determining the fate of the present writ petition are that the petitioner Shri S. Venkataraman is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s. Computer and Video Tapes Pvt. Ltd. having a registered office at 93, Eldams Road, Madras-18. This Company is registered as a small scale industrial unit with the Department of Commerce. In the due course of the manufacturing process, the company placed an order with M/s. Manipal Ltd., Hong Kong, for the import of Video Magnetic tapes in pan-cakes. The goods were received in 11 consignments at Calcutta port. On 26th February, 1986, 11 sets of bill of entry were presented at the Calcutta Customs House by the Customs House Clearing Agent M/s. Harshadry N. Doshi on behalf of the Company. The declaration on the reverse of the bill of entry was signed by the petitioner, for and on behalf of the company. As per the declarations on the bills of entry clearance of the consignment was claimed under open general licence, covering items of raw material components and consumable goods. The company also claimed the benefit of exemption notification and submitted duty exemption certificates purportedly issued by one J. K. Mathew, Joint Director in the office of the Industries and Commerce, Madras. In good faith, the goods were allowed clearance under open general licence after assessing them to duty at the concessional rate of 60 per cent ad-veloram and 40 per cent ad-veloram auxiliary duty.

(2.) Subsequently, intelligence was gathered by the Department that some of the manufacturing units have abused the benefit of exemption notification and have managed to obtain clearance of the imported Video Magnetic Tapes at the concessional rate of duty after submitting fake/forged duty certificates. Accordingly an enquiry was initiated to ascertain as to whether the certificates issued to the Company are genuine or not. On verification, it was found that the premises of the firm were locked and not functioning. It also transpired that the exemption certificates alleged to have been issued to the company were forged. The company thus unauthorisedly enjoyed the benefit of exemption notification and got released the goods on concessional duty.

(3.) On these facts, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that although adjudication proceedings and prosecution proceedings arc likely to be initiated against the petitioner, he should be detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. The order of detention is dated 1-9-86.