Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.39 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974
Section 3 in The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Sitthi Zuraina Begum vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 November, 2002
34. I do not find any force in the aforesaid contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner also. Merely because the detenu surrendered his passport and the firms of the detenu had surrendered importer exporter code, it cannot be held that the Detaining Authority could not form his subjective satisfaction about the detenu being indulged in prejudicial activities of smuggling in future. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sitthi Zuraina Begum v. Union of India, 2003 (1) RCR (Cri) 101 : (AIR 2003 SC 323) has held that seizure of passport of the detenu is no ground to quash the order of detention. The Detaining Authority was aware of this fact that the passport of the detenu was surrendered. In spite of that, while taking into consideration the documentary material available on the record, the Detaining Authority passed the order of preventive detention keeping in view the past conduct of the detenu and his prejudicial activities.
Union Of India & Ors vs Arvind Shergill & Anr on 13 September, 2000
In Union of India v. Arvind Shergill (2000 Cri LJ 4055) (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that the language of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act clearly indicates the responsibility of making the detention order rests upon the Detaining Authority, who alone is entrusted with the duty in that regard and it will be a serious derogation from the responsibility if the Court substitutes its judgment for the satisfaction of that authority on an investigation undertaken regarding sufficiency of the materials on which such satisfaction was grounded. The Court can only examine the grounds disclosed by the Detaining Authority in order to see whether they are relevant to the object which the legislation has in view, that is, to prevent the detenu from engaging in smuggling activities. The said satisfaction is subjective in nature and such a satisfaction, if based on relevant facts, cannot be stated to be invalid.
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Paul Manickam And Anr. on 13 October, 2003
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Paul Manickam's case (2003 Cri LJ 4561) (supra) has held that an order of preventive detention of a person passed under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, who is already in custody, is valid --
Safiya vs Government Of Kerala & Ors on 28 July, 2003
Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Safiya v. Govt. of Kerala case (2003 Cri LJ 3736) (supra) has held that the Court is not required to decide whether the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is justified or not. If the Detaining Authority has considered all the relevant aspects borne out from the records before issuing the detention order and after arriving at the subjective satisfaction as to the necessity of detaining a person by invoking the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act, then the Court should be slow in interfering in the matter. The Court should not lose sight of the fact that those who commit economic offence do harm to the national interest and economy. There is a very limited scope for the Court to set aside the order of preventive detention.
M/S Om Prakash Bhatia vs Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi on 7 July, 2003
9. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the petitioners does not press the first ground to challenge the impugned orders of detention to the effect that the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenus do not fall under the definition of smuggling as defined under the COFEPOSA Act, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, (2003) 6 SCC 161 : (AIR 2003 SC 3581). In the said judgment, it was held that over invoicing of the goods exported and attempted to be exported contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under the COFEPOSA Act for the time being in force falls under the ambit of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act and thus consequently fall under the definition of Smuggling as defined under Section 2(e) of the COFEPOSA Act.