SANGITA BALA JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment, we intend to finally dispose of all three petitions challenging the Orders of Detention together, as the background in which the respective Detention Orders were issued against the concerned detenues is common and arising out of the same transaction and more so, the issues raised are overlapping. In other words, the facts and events as disclosed in the respective petitions as also the reply-affidavits and the original record of the respondents, i.e., the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority are broadly identical.

(2.) THE first petition is filed by the wife of Bala Baburao Jadhav (hereinafter referred to as Detenu Jadhav), challenging the Order of Detention dated 20th July, 2011 bearing No. PSA-1211/CR-17(4)/SPL-3(A) issued by the Detaining Authority in exercise of powers under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), upon recording satisfaction that it was essential to detain the detenu with a view to prevent him in future from smuggling of goods and abetting smuggling of goods and engaging in transporting and concealing and keeping smuggled goods and harbouring persons engaged in smuggling of goods and abetting smuggling of goods. From the Grounds of Detention served on the said detenu, it is noticed that the said action was initiated against the said detenu, as he was involved along with four others in the case of gross mis- declaration with respect to quantity, quality and valuation of the declared export goods, besides claim of disproportionately higher amount of drawback. The Grounds of Detention refer to the statements of the accused recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, including the admission of the detenu that he had filed the wrong declaration on the shipping bills and had not obtained the permission of proper officer for making amendments. Further, the co-accused, Sanjay Waghmare, in his statement, admitted that he had removed the export goods from the warehouse through his associate for export. It also refers to the sealed samples (28 in number) of the goods covered under the eight shipping bills drawn under panchanama, which were forwarded to the Textile Laboratory and Research Centre, Mumbai, for testing the composition and criteria of the said items; as also to Government-approved valuer for valuation. The goods totally valued at Rs. 3,67,98,880 (F.O.B.) with drawback claim of Rs. 34,20,030/-. As per the valuation report, the value was determined at Rs. 10/- per piece of Dupatta and Rs. 20/- per piece of Sarong as compared to the declared value of Rs. 351.34 and Rs. 280.78 of the respective items, which were considerably very low. Detenu Jadhav was involved in the said offence as an employee of Clearing House Agency firm of M/s Dhakne & Co. The Grounds of Detention state that Detenu Jadhav abetted in smuggling activities by improper export and claiming drawback fraudulently by offering Clearing House Agency services to the exporters. He prepared and signed the shipping bills and related documents for exports of M/s Noble Impex and completed custom dock formalities without scrutinising the export documents. He submitted blank annexure/declaration to generate the checklist. There was difference in signature on the invoices and alterations, i.e., gross weight, net weight, description of the goods, quantity of the goods, market value and different dates on the declaration. He submitted overwritten/correct customs cleared documents at EDI Centre, Kalamboli, without proper permission of the Customs. In his statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, he admitted misdeclaration in description, quantity, quality, valuation of the export goods and claiming drawback fraudulently by the exporter. In the Grounds of Detention, it is stated that Detenu Jadhav has the propensity to commit similar offences in future and knowingly was not disclosing the identities of the persons involved in smuggling. Further, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the well-organised manner in which the prejudicial activities were being carried out, the Detaining Authority recorded her satisfaction that it was imperative to detain Detenu Jadhav with a view to prevent him from indulging in smuggling activities in future as his smuggling activities were covered by section 113(d) and (h) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) IN the Grounds of Detention served on Detenu Waghmare, it is stated that he was part of a larger conspiracy and entered into conspiracy to earn money by improper export and claiming drawback fraudulently. He went to Surat to solicit probable exporter and discussed the export strategy with exporter. He fixed Rs. 10,000/- per container as his charges and helped the exporter to get I.E.C. Code. He also arranged transport for the export of goods from Surat to Mumbai, kept the goods at warehouse at Mumbai, removed and transported export goods to shed. He introduced the exporter to Clearing House Agent M/s Dhakne & Co. and booked the container for the export goods from M/s Freight Services, Mumbai. It is further stated that Detenu Waghmare removed export goods from warehouse through his associate, arranged transport and transported the export goods to shed, thereby aided and abetted improper export for claiming higher drawback fraudulently in violation of the provisions of section 113(d) and (h) (ii) of the Customs Act. It is stated that Detenu Waghmare, along with four other co-accused, were actively involved in the attempted improper export and claimed higher disproportionate amount of drawbacks fraudulently, thereby indulging and abetting in smuggling activities. He has the propensity to commit such offences in future and knowingly was not disclosing the identities of the persons involved in the smuggling, as they are actively involved in the aforesaid illegal activities. It is stated that, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the well-organised manner in which Detenu Waghmare had engaged in prejudicial activities, it was imperative to detain him with a view to prevent him from indulging in smuggling activities in future.