RAHILA SAEED MALIK Vs. STATE OF MAHRASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged a detention order passed against him by respondent no. 2. He has filed this Petition for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus and to quash and set aside the impugned detention order No. PSA 1206/40 (3) /spl-3 (A) dated 14-11-2006.

(2.) The detention order has been passed against the petitioner upon the fact that the DRI detected a major fraud in the exports made from the Nhava Sheva port under the drawback scheme, which was available to all legitimate exporters. The petitioner, inter alia, was seen to have played a vital role in claiming drawback scheme for fictitious exports. The information was investigated. The investigation revealed that the firms, which claimed the exports drawback, were not existing, have no partners therein, no goods were carted at the Custom warehousing (CWC) in respect of several shipping bills shown for claiming the drawback, the parties, including the petitioner, had availed on-line crediting of drawback amount despite making no physical exports. The investigation further revealed that the Bank Officers of HSBC Bank recommended opening of the accounts of those parties through another person without verification of the background of the account-holders. The investigation also revealed that certain central Excise documents were forged, several EECs were fraudulently obtained by fictitious sale and purchase of goods and sharing drawback out of supplying such IECs and withdrawing drawback by using self cheques through accomplices in showing fictitious exports by EGM entries of "factory Stuffed Containers". Statements of various parties came to be recorded from time to time. It came to be shown that there was over-valuation of the export goods. In certain cases no physical exports were at all made and yet applications were filed with the customs Authorities to claim drawback under 145 shipping bills involving total drawback of Rs. 90. 66 Lacs, Rs. 271. 85 Lacs and Rs. 169. 54 Lacs in various separate transactions of similar nature.

(3.) The detention order came to be passed upon the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the petitioner had modus operandi to claim or abet the claim of drawback without making physical exports resulting in a loss of revenue to the extent of Rs. 397 Lacs and Rs. 533. 57 Lacs in separate transactions. The order of detention came to be passed upon seeing the propensity of the petitioner to recommit such offences and to prevent him from smuggling the goods in the same fashion in future.