THANGAIAH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fa-ther of the detenu is the petitioner. He filed this petition challenging the impugned order of detention which was slapped on the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (in short COFEPOSA).

(2.) The detenu is the proprietor of M/s. T.T. Enterprises, Trichy, engaged in the trade of apples. It is alleged that based on the specific intelligence, the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence have initiated investigation with regard to undervaluation in the import of apples from various countries mainly from M/s. Evan Fruit Company, USA and on investigation, they came to know that the detenu has committed the offence of undervaluation in the import of apples and the total customs duty evasion is to the tune of Rs.1.75 crores and thus, he has consciously evolved a modus operandi to evade payment of appropriate customs duty by producing two sets of invoices, one showing lesser value for customs and another with actual value, which is the final loading invoice and therefore, it is necessary to detain him under the provisions of COFEPOSA with a view to prevent him from indulging in smuggling of goods in future, further ordering confiscation of apples so imported under Section lll(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said order of detention has been challenged on various grounds in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

(3.) Mr. B. Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the documents mentioned in the index at page Nos. 42 and 43, which were relied upon by the Detaining Authority while clamping the impugned order of detention, were not supplied to the detenu. He has further submitted that the detenu, by his representation dated 2.12.2008, has specifically requested to furnish the legible copies of documents at page Nos. 298, 300-303, 335- 338, 347, 348, 358, 362, 403, 404, 411, 412, 414, 415 and 424, since they are illegible, but no such documents were furnished to the detenu and therefore, it has caused much prejudice to the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground itself, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.