V JAYA Vs. MAHENDRA PRASAD JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.Gulab C.Gupta, J.The petitioners are the wives of the three detenus Om Prakash Goyal, Bharat Bhushan Goyal and S.Vaidyananthan, who have been lodged in Central Prison, Madras pursuant to the order dated 25.4.1994 passed under Sec.3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with a view to prevent them from engaging in smuggling and abetting the smuggling of goods in future. They feel aggrieved with the said detention and have preferred these writ petitions challenging the legal and constitutional validity thereof under Art.226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE detenu, Bharat Bhushan Goyal is the partner of M/s. Goyal Dresses, a firm constituted under the Partnership Act and having its business premises at No.556, Mount Road, Madras. THE detenu, Om Prakash Goyal is the father of the said Bharat Bhushan Goyal and is also a partner in the firm M/s.Goyal Dresses. THE detenu S.Vaidyanathan, is the managing partner of M/s. Best Fabrics, another firm concerned in the matter. It is alleged that the Zonal unit of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence obtained information that the detenus and their firms were evading customs duty on Label Tape and nylon outer lining material imported by them by falsely availing the benefit of exemption notifications under Duty Exemption Scheme by producing fabricated Bill of Lading grossly mis-declaring their value for the purpose of assessment. THE factory and office premises of the above mentioned two firms and the residences of the detenus were, therefore, put to searches on 14.2.1994. THE office premises of M/s. Bhansali Garments (Private) Limited yet another firm at No. 10, Part Street, Kilpauk Garden Colony, Kilpauk, Madras and the residence of Rajesh Bhansali of the said firm at No.26, Khan Street, Choolaimedu, Madras were also, searched. It is alleged that in the aforesaid searches, the officers recovered incriminating documents and files relating to various imports made in the name of M/s.Best Fabrics as well as in the name of M/s.Goyal Dresses and M/s.Singhal Agencies, New Delhi. During the course of search of the premises of M/s.Best Fabrics and M/s.Bhansali garments, the officers are alleged to have found a few consignments of imported cargo kept stored in those places. On a scrutiny of documents it was seen that the consignment of 400 cartons of label tapes covered by Bill of Entry No.3507 dated 27.1.1994 was cleared duty free under Duty Exemption Scheme against Advance Licence No. 152873 dated 9.7.1992 issued in favour of M/s.Reflex International Private Ltd., Delhi and Transferred to M/s.Goyal Dresses. It was also found that M/s.Goyal Dresses Subsequently transferred the said licence to M/s.Pharma and Vijay Investments and Financing Company Private Limited and ultimately M/s.Best Fabrics, Madras. It was also found that the Bill of Lading filed along with the Bill of Entry was a fabricated document and the shipment date was ante-dated so as to bring it within the validity period of the licence produced.

(3.) THE detenus were informed that they have a right to make representation to the Detaining Authority, the Advisory Board and the Central Government against the order of detention. THE detenus made their representations to all of them through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras on 7.6.1994. In this representation they complained that they had not been supplied all the documents referred to and relied on by the Detaining Authority and were, therefore, handicapped in making their representation. THEy further submitted that large number of documents supplied to them were illegible and could not be used and hence they were not able to make any effective representation. It appears that this complaint was noticed by the respondent- Detaining Authority, who ordered that the documents required by the detenus be supplied to them. THE documents were accordingly supplied on 25.6.1994. THEreafter the detenu Om Prakash Goyal and Bharat Bhooshan Goyal submitted further representation on 1.7.1994. Subsequently both the representations of the two detenus were rejected. As regards the detenu S.Vaidyanathan it appears that his representation dated 7.6.1994 was rejected and the said rejection communicated to him together with the documents required by him. It further appears that since the first representation had been rejected he did not make any further representations. In the meantime these writ petitions were filed by their wives and hence the matter is under consideration of this Court.