Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. During the course of investigation, number of statements came to be recorded. The statements of the detenu revealed the role played by him. It appears to be the case of the detaining authority that the above consignments were imported by one Umesh Shetty. The Import Export Code of M/s. Orbit International and M/s. Drashtri Overseas is in the name of one Yogesh Merchant. Umesh Shetty was introduced to the detenu at Sahar Air Cargo by one NRI Mohan. Umesh Shetty told the detenu that he was planning to import analog watch movements by misdeclaring the same as parts of plastic toys in the import documents and he told the detenu to manage the clearance of the same. Umesh Shetty also told him to arrange for Import Export Code. The detenu knew that Yogesh Merchant had two Import Export Codes. The detenu offered those Codes to Umesh Shetty for importing the consignments of analog watch movements and Umesh Shetty agreed for the same. Umesh Shetty agreed to give Rs. 1 lac to the detenu. According to the detaining authority, on the basis of the said Codes, the consignments were imported. On the basis of the material placed before the detaining authority, the detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu had actually participated in the acts of smuggling of goods. She was satisfied that unless detained, the detenu will continue to indulge in similar activities in future and, therefore, she issued the impugned order of detention. In the petition, the said order is under challenge.

15. Yogesh Merchant has in his statement stated that in August, 2005, the detenu met him and told him that he had a person who wanted to import some goods from China and that this person did not have an Import Export Code. The detenu asked him whether he can give the Import Export Code of his firms for importing the goods to that person and in return he would get Rs. 2,000/to Rs. 2,500/per consignment. Yogesh Merchant agreed for this arrangement. Yogesh Merchant has further stated that the detenu took details of both the firms and details of the Import Export Codes. The detenu used to take his signatures on the import documents including letterheads and declarations in the name of his firms. Yogesh Merchant has stated that he never met the person who had caused the imports to be made and all his dealings were with the detenu.

16. In his statement, Umesh Shetty has stated that the detenu was introduced to him by one Mohan. He told the detenu that he was planning to import analog watch movements which could be declared as "parts of plastic toys" in the import documents. He told the detenu to arrange for Import Export Code. The detenu accordingly procured Import Export Code from Yogesh Merchant. Thereafter, consignments misdeclared as plastic toys were imported by Umesh Shetty and were cleared by the detenu.

17. It is clear, therefore, that the goods belonged to Umesh Shetty. They were misdeclared by him and imported on the Import Export Code of Yogesh Merchant. The detenu procured Yogesh Merchant's Import Export Code and cleared the goods.

19. The view expressed by us is supported by the judgment of this Court in Mahinder Singh's case (supra). In that case, the detenu was detained with a view to preventing him from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in, transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. The detenu had allowed his Import Export Code number to be used for smuggling goods from Dubai. This Court observed that there appears to be no overact by the detenu for smuggling goods or otherwise dealing with them other than by allowing his license to be used for the purpose of import. This Court observed that the detenu's activities are in the nature of abetment of smuggling activities by allowing the use of his Import Export Code number and there was no material to show that he dealt with the smuggled goods. Therefore, merely procuring Import Export Code was considered as abetting of smuggling of goods. In the present case also, the detenu has arranged for Import Export Code. His other activities pertain to clearance of the goods. There is nothing to indicate that the detenu had actually smuggled goods to India. There is no material to indicate that he had anything to do with the said goods prior to their landing in India.