(1.) THE unsuccessful writ petitioner assails the order of dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that he was eminently eligible to have the preventive order of detention under the Conservation of Foreign exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 set aside at the pre-execution stage on twin counts of delay on the touchstone of tests laid down by the Supreme Court.
(2.) THE appellant carried on business of manufacture of blankets under the name and style of Brij Spinners since 1996. He claims to have started exporting blankets in the year 2003 and executed export orders of value of rs. 33 crore. He was constrained to close down his manufacturing unit in ludhiana in March, 2004 following the seizure of certain quantities of blankets in course of their export. Such seizure was made in Haldia on March 9, 2004. On March 10, 2004 the appellant's Ludhiana unit was raided and thereafter sealed or seized. The seizure was lifted on May 5, 2004. The appellant was served with summons under section 108 of the Customs Act in late April, 2004 and his statement was recorded in Ludhiana in May 7, 2004. A show-cause notice of September 6, 2004 was issued by the Customs authorities in Calcutta. The show-cause notice referred to various documents which the appellant demanded upon receipt of the notice. The appellant now cites the authorities' failure to furnish all the documents as a ruse for not responding to the notice.
(3.) IN the appellant's words, "sometime around in December, 2004 (he)came to learn that the respondents are in the process of invoking the provisions of. . . COFEPOSA. . . on the basis of the alleged over-invoicing and misdeclaration in the. . . shipping bills. . . " The appellant claims that he purchased blankets from Panipat firms at or about Rs. 490/- per piece though the respondents were of the view that the value of the blankets were Rs. 100/- apiece. The appellant relies on his earning valuable foreign exchange for the country and says that it is unbelievable that for availing duty exemption benefit of Rs. 19. 60 lakh the appellant would have indulged in over-invoicing to the extent of Rs. 63,44,450/ -. The appellant relies on some "internal policy of the respondents" to not invoke the provisions of COFEPOSA if the export duty evasion is less than Rs. 25 lakh.