Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

...Therefore, the detaining authority has passed the detention order against the detenu after considering all the documents including the documents mentioned by the petitioner for drawing his subjective satisfaction.

These documents are not part of the relied upon documents nor supplied to the detenu.

10. He also submits that the Importer Exporter Code pertaining to the three proprietorship firms of the detenu i.e. M/s History Logistics, M/s Rajmahal Bhindar and M/s V.K. Tours and Transport, in Denied Entry List (DEL) has not been placed, nor brought to the notice of the detaining authority nor copies thereof supplied to the detenu. The stand of the detaining authority in their counter affidavit to this is that : -

considering the modus operandi adopted by the detenu, mere suspension of IEC of some of the firms/company of the detenu cannot be treated as absolute denial to the detenu from indulging such prejudicial activities in future and accordingly it has no bearing on the issue of the detention order by the detaining authority.

11. Counsel submits that importance of IEC in terms of Chapter 2.12 of the General Provisions regarding Imports and Exports under the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09 is that "no export or import shall be made by any person without an Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) Number. Since the IEC number allotted to the detenu's three firms had been cancelled by the licensing authority, the detenu could not import or export any goods. Therefore, the said order of suspension was a very vital and relevant document. Counsel also submits that copies of the documents comprising of ten thousand pages in 115 files were seized vide panchnama dated 30.8.2005 including Bank Guarantees, Corporate Guarantees and Bonds executed by the detenu and/or his firms securing the entire amount of customs duty saved while importing the vehicles in question, which are still alive. These documents being vital have not been placed before the detaining authority, nor copies thereof been supplied to the detenu, although the detaining authority categorically admits as under:

37. To contend that the representation dated 12.12.2005 is not relevant and, therefore, was not necessary to be reflected in the grounds of detention as the same was not the basis of the grounds of detention, is, to say the least, not tenable. The representation dated 12.12.2005 where the detenu, as already stated, has set down specifically his case against the order of detention, is, by no stretch of imagination, not a vital document. It was necessary that this vital document which, according to the detaining authority's affidavit, was placed and considered by the detaining authority, should have found mention in the relied upon document and the same supplied to the detenu to make an effective representation. The representation dated 12.12.2005 and its consideration should have been reflected in the grounds of detention. In the present case, we find that this vital document/material has not been relied upon nor does it find reflection in the grounds of detention nor copy thereof supplied to the detenu. This in itself is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention. Copy of the show cause notice bearing No. F. No. S/40-EPCG-456(A)/03-04 JCH dated 227.2004, issued by the Customs Authorities to M/s History Logistics, which, the detaining authority says, was placed before the detaining authority for consideration and considered to draw the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, does not find part of the relied upon documents nor has the same been supplied to the detenu. Similarly, copies of documents comprised in the Panchnama dated 30.8.2005 have not been supplied to the detenu although the Panchnama finds mention in the grounds of detention but the documents seized along with the Pauchnama have not been relied upon nor have they been supplied to the detenu. This too is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention. The Importer Exporter Code pertaining to the three proprietorship firms of the detenu, M/s History Logistics, M/s Rajmahal Bhinder and M/s V.K. Tours and Transport in the Denied Entry List was not placed before the detaining authority since, according to the counter affidavit, the modus operandi was such that this document would have had no effect. Material which may have bearing with the activities and the action taken by the authorities on that would certainly be relevant which required consideration by the detaining authority, its non-placement before the detaining authority would vitiate the detention order. We also find that the Writ Petition No. 5431 of 2002, though mentioned as relied upon document, has not been supplied to the detenu, non-supply of material relied upon would vitiate the order as its non-supply would impair the detenu's right to file an effective representation.