CHANDRA DEV NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners Chandra Deo Narayan Singh and Aditya Singh have come up before this Court challenging the two detention orders. Under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, bearing numbers 673/72/ 2000 -CUS -VIII and 673/73/2000 -CUS -VIII, both dated 16.11.2000 and issued against them by the Joint Secretary COFEPOSA, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Consequently, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ of or in the nature of a writ of certtorori for quashing the aforementioned detention orders.

(2.) THE petitioners have stated that they are both Directors/Partners of Quality Apparel Exports, a Partnership Firm and what both the said Company and the Firm have their place of business and their offices at MIDC, Marol, Andheri (EAST) Mumbai and also at Ranchi. They have further stated that they have a house at Mumbai and also at the Kanke Road. According to the petitioner and or about 31.05.2000, about 700 Cartons of readymade garments were cleared for export by the Customs Authority at Mumbai and a "Let Exports" endorsement was made under Section 51 of the Customs Act. According to them, once such a "Let Export" endorsement was made, the same could not have been challenged without taking recourse to the provisions of Section 129 -D of the Customs Act. However, contrary to the same, the officers of the preventive department of customs seized the goods on 2.6.2000. According to the petitioner, the seizure was ex parte, behind their back as no notice had been given to them. Subsequently, the petitioner No. 2 was interrogated and his statement recorded on 13.6.2000 and 16.6.2000 whereafter, the petitioner No. 2 was arrested on 16.6.2000 under Section 104 of the Customs Act. He was however released on bail on 11.7.2000. The petitioners have stated that the authorities showed the petitioner No. 2 some samples of rags contained in gunny bags alleging that these were being exported by the petitioners. According in the petitioners, the petitioner No. 2 refused to accept such allegations and gave a statement to the effect that the gunny bags never belonged, to the petitioners and that in any event, readymade fashion garments being costly goods are never exported in gunny bags and that they are exported in cartons. The petitioners have stated that on 19.7.2000, when the petitioner No. 1 came to Mumbai after having heard about the arrest of his son (i.e. petitioner No. 2) he (petitioner No. 1) was also arrested in Court and some statements were obtained from him on several dates. The petitioner No. 1 who had been arrested and his younger son Randhir Singh who had also been arrested on 19.7.2000 were released on bail on 8.8.2000. The petitioners have stated that after having been released on bail they did not hear anything from either the custom or any other authority but subsequently came to learn that the custom authorities were making allegations that the petitioners had been exporting rags instead of readymade garments and had thereby misappropriated the drawback incentives issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade. The petitioners have further stated that till date there has been no order of adjudication and since August 2000, the matter was lying in a state of suspended animation when in March 2001 ah order of detention dated 16.11.2000 was served upon the younger son of the petitioner No. 1 which was challenged by him before the Mumbai High Court, vide w.P. No. 987 of 2001 and the order of detention was quashed, vide order dated 6.11.2000. Similarly, the order of detentfon was also served on an employee of the petitioners and that was also quashed by the Mumbai High Court on 19.10.2001 in W.P. No. 227 of 2001. However, the petitioners have stated that no such order of detention has been served either upon the petitioner No. 1 or the petitioner No. 2.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there has been an unexplained delay of approximately a little over five months from the date of seizure to the date of passing of the order of detention, i.e. from 2.6.2000 to 16.11.2000. He has also argued that in view of the fact that till date execution has not taken place, therefore, the delay is continuing and no attempt has been made by the respondents for execution of the detention order.