section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention
of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (' COFEPOSA Act ' for short) is under
challenge ... domestic market in violation of the DEEC Scheme
Licences, amounted to "smuggling" of goods. The detaining authority also
stated that the nature
activities of the Appellant come within the purview of the
expression "smuggling" as defined in Section 2(39) of the Customs
Act read ... nation or from disturbing the public
tranquility or from indulging in smuggling
activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
Prison of
Chennai under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short the
' COFEPOSA Act '). The order ... COFEPOSA Act with a view to prevent the
detenu from indulging in smuggling goods in future. The order
of detention is dated 20.9.2005.
The background
means of transport of the said cargo, it was deemed to have
smuggled the cargo into the country and by virtue of the unauthorised entry ... said judgments also relate to goods which are found to be smuggled goods. They can
have no manner of application to the confiscation
under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 on January 27, 2006. The order of detention ... alongwith two others. The detenu had, therefore, actively aided and abetted the smuggling of the goods as defined by Section 2(39) of the Customs
does not apply, the burden of proving that
the goods are smuggled goods, is on the Department.
This is a fundamental rule relating to proof ... obliged to prove them as part of its primary burden.
32. Smuggling is clandestine conveying of goods to
avoid legal duties. Secrecy and stealth being
emanating from
international terrorism or organized crimes like drug
trafficking, money laundering, smuggling of weapons from
across the borders, counterfeiting of currency or the activities
during investigation it
was revealed that question papers and answer scripts were smuggled
out of the headquarters of the Commission and at times, blank answer
entertain any suspicion regarding
involvement of Appellant therein being in possession or smuggling of opium.
In Bhola Ram Kushwaha v. State
that after he was so released the
appellant would indulge in smuggling activities. The
detaining authority noted that the appellant was in custody
when
