BINOD KUMAR GARODIA Vs. SAROJ GARODIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus the petitioner Saroj Garodia calls in question the validity of her husband viz. Binod Kumar Garodia's detention under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detenu Binod Kumar Gorodia was taken into preventive custody in pursuance of an order dated 14.07.2005 passed under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 issued by one Sri R. K. Gupta, Joint Secretary to the Government of India under the following circumstances :-

(2.) Shri Binod Kumar Garodia was summoned on 18.02.2005 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and he made a voluntary statement wherein he admitted the clandestine and illegal dealing and illegal removal into DTA and misdeclaration of export, in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act and the relevant "exemption notification. Similarly, Vijender Kumar Garg and Dinesh Kumar Agarwal were also summoned on 18.02.2005 under Section 108 of the Customs Act and they also gave voluntary statements wherein they admitted their involvement in the clandestine and fraudulent act of the detenu. The matter was investigated in detail by the revenue authority and during the course of investigation large number of statements of different persons were recorded and properties were seized from different godowns.

(3.) The result of the investigation showed that the detenu conspired to evade huge amount of customs duty through a 100% EOU in the name of M/s. Paramount Link Pvt. Ltd. at Varanasi by showing certain persons as its directors to avoid being traced as its real owner, imported fully assembled old and used photocopiers by mis-declaring those machines as machinery, spares and components, copiers in Semi Knocked Down Condition (old and used), got the saleable machines segregated by the staff of the detenu in the unit and illegally diverted those machines without carrying out any process of manufacturing/ assembling under fake parallel invoices issued in the name of dummy/non-existent firms to DTA. In connection with all those activities, the detenu was arrested for the commission of the offences under the Customs Act, 1962 and was released on bail. After taking into consideration the above mentioned facts and materials, the authority was satisfied that the activities of the detenu amounted to smuggling as defined under Section 2(39) of the Customs Act, 1962 and as adopted in the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 and as such, the authority. came to the conclusion that the detenu was involved in prejudicial activities as discussed above in a well planned manner and the authority was satisfied that the detenu was capable of indulging in such prejudicial activities in future and as such, he was of the opinion that it was necessary in order to prevent the detenu from indulging in such prejudicial activities in future, to detain him under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods in future. The detaining authority took into consideration the various representations and other materials and thereafter passed the detention order in respect of the detenu.