REMYA Vs. SARASWATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in H.C.P.No.1208 of 2007 is the wife of the detenu-A.Satish Kumar, who has been detained by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) by the detention order made in G.O.SR.I/530-5/2007 Public (SC) Department dated 16.7.2007. Similarly, the petitioner in H.C.P.No.1209 of 2007 is the mother of the detenu-S.Ganesh, who has been detained by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) by the detention order made in G.O.SR.I/530-6/2007 Public (SC) Department dated 16.7.2007. As both the detenus have been detained in respect of the same transaction, the grounds of detention in respect of the detenu-A.Sathish Kumar are alone referred to in this order.

(2.) IN the grounds of detention, it is alleged that on the basis of specific intelligence to the effect that M/s Nila Exporters had filed a shipping bill bearing no.000596 dated 22.5.2007 in INland Container Depot, Thudiyalur, Coimbatore declaring that the goods in the shipping bill documents are 100% cotton powerloom woven men's night pants and the consignee is M/s Primark Tiends S.L.U., Dublin, Ireland and the said shipping bill was filed by the exporter under the Duty Drawback Scheme and that the exporter had misdeclared the goods in order to avail the undue benefit of drawback, the Directorate of Revenue INtelligence, Chennai detained the export container covered under the above shipping bill. On examination of the said export consignment, it was found that out of 268 cartons, 43 cartons were found to contain 2981 numbers of pants appearing to be of inferior quality and the remaining 225 cartons were found to contain used/torn/dirty/cheap rags and used clothes/nighties appearing to be of no commercial value. On the reasonable belief that the goods are liable to confiscation, they were seized under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) MR.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that all the above documents are only referred documents and therefore merely because those documents were not supplied to the detenu, it would not render the detention order vitiated.