H BASEER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the detenu himself challenging the detention order in G.O.No. SR.1/741-4/2003 Public (SC) Department dated 10-6-2003 passed against him under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52/1974) (in short "COFEPOSA") on the allegation that he attempted to smuggle into India, electronic goods valued at Rs.6,33,200/- through Madras International Airport by misdeclaration/concealment when he came from Singapore on 21-5-2003. The detention order was served on the detenu on 11-6-2003 and the detenu is detained in the Central Prison, Chennai as COFEPOSA detenu.

(2.) It is seen that the petitioner-detenu came from Singapore via Colombo and landed at Chennai International Airport on 21-05-2003 along with 3 baggages and on his arrival, he went to Customs counter for clearance of the baggage brought by him. He was intercepted by the Customs Intelligence Officers near the conveyor belt No.2 and he was taken to the Air Intelligence room for detailed examination. He declared to the customs intelligence offices that his baggages contain 30 cell phones, 6 Nos. of mother boards, 4 Nos. of car stereos and two video cameras totally valued at Rs.1,60,000/-. It is further alleged that he attempted to smuggle electronic and other goods of foreign origin totally valued at Rs.6,33,200/-(CIF) into India by misdeclaration with a view

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention, has raised the only contention that the retraction letter dated 31-5-2003 sent by his counsel addressed to the sponsoring authority, namely, Commissioner of Customs (Air) was not forwarded to the detaining authority who passed the order of detention on 10-6-2003. According to him, inasmuch as the relevant document was not placed before the detaining authority though it was sent prior to the passing of the order; hence the detention order is vitiated. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the alleged letter was not addressed to the authority concerned, even otherwise on receipt of the same on 4-6-2003, considering the claim made therein, the same was forwarded to the appropriate authority, namely, adjudicating authority; hence there is no question of placing the said letter to the detaining authority. He also contended that however the said letter was placed before the Advisory Board and the Government and that the same were rightly considered and rejected.