RIZWANA ZIYATH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, wife of one Ibrahim Nazeer, detenu herein, who was detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison, Chennai under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling activities Act, 1974, challenges the same in this petition.

(2.) ON 31-8-2005, the detenu-Ibrahim Nazeer , arrived Chennai from Singapore by Indian Airlines Flight IC 558 with Ticket No. 51671263862. After immigration clearance, he collected his three bags from the conveyor belt and proceeded to customs Table No. 8 where he declared that he was in possession of electronic goods worth Rs. 30,000/ -. At this point, he was intercepted by the Customs officer and questioned the contents of his baggage. He reiterated the declaration given at the table that he was in possession of electronic goods of the value of Rs. 30,000/ -. Since his reply was not convincing, his three bags were taken up for examination in the presence of two independent mahazar witnesses. He produced two claim Tags bearing Nos. SQ 441432 and SQ 441433 and further stated in the presence of independent witnesses that the cardboard carton bearing Tag No. SQ 442077 tagged in the name of Tmt. Selvi Narayanan actually belonged to him and that as he was already having excess weight, he made use of her baggage weight entitlement. Enquiries by the officer showed that the said Selvi Narayanan had already left the arrival hall and that she had not filed any claim for missing baggage. In the presence of witnesses, his three bags were opened and examined one by one. Examination of navy blue colour bag bearing baggage Tag No. SQ 441432 resulted in the recovery of 12 Nos. Pioneer (model DEH-P 7750 MP) Car Stereos and 500 Nos. of Hynix 256 MB RAMs. Examination of indigo colour bag bearing baggage Tag No. SQ 441433 resulted in the recovery of 10 Nos. of Panasonic (model NV-GS 25 GC) digital video cameras, 5 Nos. of Sony (model DCR-TRV 285e) digital video cameras, 3 Nos. of Pioneer car Stereos and 10 Nos. of Motorola V3 mobile phones (without accessories ). Examination of the Pioneer cardboard carton bearing baggage Tag No. SQ 442077 resulted in the recovery of 4 Nos. of Panasonic (model No. NV-MD 9000 EN)Digital Video Cameras. It is also stated in the grounds that after fulfilling all the formalities, the value of the seized goods was ascertained. ON the date of the seizure, the value of the seized goods was Rs. 8,22,500/- (CIF) and rs. 11,51,500 (M. V) approximately. After finding that the adjudication and prosecution proceedings are likely to be initiated under Customs Act, 1962, the state Government after satisfying itself with the materials placed, arrived at a conclusion that it is necessary to detain him under the provisions of the cofeposa Act, 1974 with a view to prevent him from indulging in smuggling goods in future. The grounds further shows that while arriving at the subjective satisfaction to detain him under the COFEPOSA Act, the State Government has taken into consideration all the facts and materials referred to and relied upon in the grounds mentioned above and also the statements, bail petition, representation and mahazars etc.

(3.) CHAPTER VII of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with clearance of imported goods and export goods. Section 55 makes it clear that the provisions of this CHAPTER (CHAPTER VII) are not applicable to (a) baggage and (b) goods imported or to be exported by post. It is also relevant to note that as per Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14, the price shall be calculated with reference to the rate of exchange as in force on the date on which a bill of entry is presented under section 46, or a shipping bill or bill of export presented under section 50. The detenu has not placed any document much less bill of entry. This fact is not disputed. In such a circumstance, by applying the guidelines and on seeing the physical condition of the goods, the department valued the goods which cannot be considered as arbitrary or unfair. It is not in dispute that Courts exercising powers under the judicial review do not consider the challenge to an order of detention as if on an appeal re-appreciating the materials. Though Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in CHOWDARAPU RAGHUNANDAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [jt 2002 (3) SC 110], in the light of the factual details/materials and the ultimate satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority before passing the order of detention, we are of the view that the claim of the petitioner that there is no material warranting action under COFEPOSA Act is no leg to stand. Instead, there are materials warranting such action.