(1.) THE wife of the detenu has filed the above Writ Petition for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to quash the order of detention dated 1 8.6.2001 passed under Sec. 3(1)(I) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) and to produce the detenu and set him at liberty.
(2.) THE facts of the case are stated as follows : The detenu claims to be a dealer in salt fish, tea powder and that he went to Singapore for business purposes. He arrived at Chennai Airport by a Singapore Flight on 11.5.2001. He declared the goods brought by him as 300 numbers of calculators and 200 numbers of adapters of the value of Rs.1 lakh and the number of baggages as one hand baggage and three checked -in baggages. He was intercepted by the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and on checking the baggages, they contained electronic goods having a total C.I.F. value of Rs.11,58,200/ - and a market value of Rs.18 lakhs approximately. The goods were seized under a mahazar dated 11/12.5.2001, since they were in trade quantities not declared and brought to India by way of smuggling, with an intention to evade payment of customs duty. In his voluntary statement, the detenu is said to have admitted that he has been regularly visiting Singapore for bringing foreign goods for sale in India for profit and that he used to carry Indian/Foreign currencies on his journey from Chennai to Singapore for procuring goods and also on obtaining loans at Singapore. The detenu was arrested on 12.5.20 01 and was remanded to judicial custody by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II). The detenu had sent a representation dated 18.5.2001 to the Senior D.R.I. Officer, Commissioner of Customs alleging that he was falsely implicated and that the statement obtained on 12.5.2001 was false. He has also submitted that he is prepared to pay the customs duty on the goods or he may be permitted to re export the goods to Singapore. The said representation was considered by the D.R.I. and in their reply dated 28.5.2001, they have stated that the averments of the detenu and the allegations are baseless, unsustainable and have been made as an after -thought on subsequent realisation of the implications of his voluntary statement and the consequences of the offence in which he is involved. It is also stated that the detenu did not make any complaint of ill -treatment before the learned Magistrate. While the detenu was a remand prisoner, the impugned order of detention dated 18.6.2001 came to be passed with a view to prevent the detenu in indulging in prejudicial activities which amount to smuggling. The writ petition is against this order.
(3.) THE detenu received a show cause notice under Sec. 124 of the Customs Act from the D.R.I. dated 23.7.2001 to show cause as to why the goods should not be confiscated under Sections111(d), 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty should not be imposed on him under Sec. 112(a) of the Customs Act. The detenu has submitted his reply dated 3.8.2001 to the Commissioner of Customs. In the meanwhile, the Advisory Board (COFEPOSA), reference under Sec. 8(b) of the Act, fixed a personal hearing on 31.7.2001 as per their notice dated 6.7.2001. The D.R.I. as well as the detenu had been requested to appear with the connected records. Subsequently, the meeting of the Board was adjourned to 6.8.2001. The detenu submitted a representation to the Board dated 6.8.2001. The Board, by their order dated 6.8.2001, opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenu. The Government confirmed the order of detention in G.O. Rt.3766 dated 5.9.2001 after considering all the materials, including the grounds of detention, the representation dated 6.8.2001 presented by the detenu before the Board and the representation of the wife of the detenu dated 10.8.2001.