A PEER MOHAMED Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the order of detention passed by the first respondent herein dated 14/5/2002. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder.

(2.) The detenu was travelling from Hong Kong to Chennai via Singapore by the Sri Lankan Aiilines flight and landed at Chennai on 24/3/2002. On his arrival, he had made a declaration of the goods brought by him and valued them at Rs. 75,000/-. However, when the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted the detenu and checked his baggages, they were found to contain foreign goods valued at Rs. 8,77,750/-, which were far in excess of the quantity and value declared by the detenu. On the basis of the statement of the detenu that he had so far visited Colombo seven times and Hong Kong four times, that he used to get monetary consideration at the rate of Rs. 30/- per kg. of goods brought by him, that on prior occasions, he never paid customs duty, that he had to obtain loan for the ticket and other expenses and that the detenu knew very well that it was an offence to smuggle foreign goods without payment of customs duty, the Officers found that the goods brought by the detenu were all liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(1) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 as they were brought inb India in ontientbn &Sa1n (dc) read with Section 2(39), 77 and 79 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Para 5.6 of the Export and Import Policy for 1997/2002. By committing the aforesaid acts, the detenu was found liable for penal action under Section 112 and punishment under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 11(i) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. Thereafter, the detenu was produced before the A.C.M.M. C.O. II, Chennai who remanded the detenu to judicial custody till 8/4/2002. The Government, after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations that the detenu had indulged in smuggling of goods, ordered to detain him under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods in future. As against the said order of detention dated 14/5/2002, the father of the detenu had made a representation both to the Central and the State Governments dated 29/5/2002 and 31/5/2002 respectively. The above Habeas Corpus Petition is filed challenging the said order of detention.

(3.) The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a delay in considering the representation sent by the petitioners father and that there was non-furnishing of document relied upon, namely the declaration form in Tamil which is the language known to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, these defects have vitiated the order of detention passed by the first respondent.