KAMALAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the wife of the detenu who was detained under Section 3 (1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (in short "COFEPOSA Act") (Central Act 52 of 1974) by the impugned proceedings dated 02-03-2004. The said order came to be passed by the first respondent with a view to prevent the detenu Ramalingam Subramanian residing at No.770/C1, East Third Street, Pudukottai from smuggling goods in future.

(2.) HEARD Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate, for first respondent as well as Mrs. Vanathi Srinivasan, learned Additional Central Government Standing counsel for second respondent.

(3.) THE analysis of the above statutory provisions make it clear that even for human consumption if the goods imported are not prohibited goods on payment of import duty, if any, and after payment of necessary charges in respect of the same, the proper officer is empowered to pass an order permitting clearance of goods. Though sub-section (2) of Section 23 enables the owner of the imported goods to relinquish his title to save duty, the said provision is not an absolute one, but subject to other conditions. We have already referred to Section 77 of the Act which enables the owner of any baggage to make a declaration of its contents to the proper officer for the purpose of clearing the same. Though the detenu had left the said three baggages without clearing the same before the proper officer, his voluntary statement given before the officer, Customs House, Chennai-1 and the materials available from the three baggages would show that he undertook to deliver the said bags from a baggage broker at Singapore airport with an assurance that on handing over the 3 baggages to a person who would identify him outside Chennai airport, he would be paid 250 Singapore dollars at Singapore airport itself and on that understanding/assurance, he checked in all the 3 baggage along with his hand baggage. It is further seen that in the baggage it was found one Indian passport issued at Singapore on 8-7-2002 to the detenu Ramalingam Subramanian and also contained customs declaration card duly signed with particulars of flight No. as IC 556 in the name of Ramalingam Subramanian stating that number of packages as 3, checked in baggage as 2 and hand baggage as 1 having been filled up, but leaving the value of the dutiable goods being imported blank was found. Apart from the same, the baggage was found to contain several other trade materials as referred to in clause (ii) of the grounds of detention. It is also seen from the materials furnished that cases were registered against the detenu twice during 2002 for bringing goods violating Customs Act to the tune of Rs. 4 Lakhs. All the above materials show that the detenu was aware that the materials inside the baggages were trade articles entrusted by a baggage broker at Singapore to be handed over to a person at Chennai Airport. Though the above articles are not prohibited one, the same are dutiable and in the event of non-payment of duty, the same are liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and for not making a true declaration to the customs authorities as required under Section 77 of the Act.