VINOD MOHANLAL DESAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, by order dated March 8, 1988 passed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") directed detention of Sunil V. Desai with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and abetting the smuggling of goods. The order of detention was served on May 2, 1988 and the grounds of detention were furnished.

(2.) The grounds, inter alia, recites that a consignment consisting of 4 packages weighing 446 kgs. arrived at Cargo Terminal of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, from Singapore on November 9, 1987. The goods were consigned to M/s. Charu International (P) Ltd., New Delhi. A Bill of Entry dated November 10, 1987 for clearance of the consignment in the name of M/s. Charu International (P) Ltd., alongwith delivery orders from the consignors with an invoice from Vijay Bank and packing list, etc., was filed with the Customs Authorities. The consignment was under surveillance of the Customs Cargo Preventive Unit. A written complaint dated November 16, 1987, was received from M/s. Charu International complaining that M/s. Charu International had never put an order and bogus documents were tendered in the name of M/s. Charu International. During the enquiries made by the Cargo Preventive Unit of the Customs, it was noticed that some of the officers employed in the Ministry of Finance were involved with the import in the bogus name and were also responsible for clearing of the consignment. The consignment was really meant for the detenu who is carrying on business in Bombay. The detenu reached New Delhi and on being confronted had to admit that the goods were imported by him in the name of a Delhi based firm illegally by misdeclaration of invoice. The Customs Authorities seized the goods and recorded the statement of the detenu. Statements of various other persons were recorded and on the strength of these material, the Detaining Authority came to the conclusion that the detenu was involved in smuggling goods and abetting smuggling of goods into India and unless prevented, he will continue to do so in future. As a result of this conclusion, the impugned order of detention came to be passed and the order is under challenge at the behest of the father of the detenu.

(3.) Mr. Karmali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenu, submitted that the order detention is required to be struck down as the representation made by the detenu to the Detaining Authority was not considered. The petition in para 6(CC) specifically raises a contention that the detenu was not intimated about the fate of the representation made on May 10, 1988 to the Detaining Authority. Mr. Karmali submitted that in case the representation was not considered by the Detaining Authority, then the order of detention cannot be sustained and continued detention of the detenu is illegal. In answer to the petition, K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary of the Government of India as the Detaining Authority has filed return sworn on July 29, 1988. With reference to the claim made by the detenu in para 6(CC) of the petition, it is averred as follows :-