Preventive detention under COFEPOSA fails where smuggling is unsupported by cogent material and rests only on hearsay.

Preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act requires cogent material showing that the proposed detenue acted prejudicially to the prevention of smuggling, and the statutory foundation depends on the goods being smuggled goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. Mere hearsay or crew statements, without a supporting statement or other material under Section 108 of the Customs Act, is insufficient to establish that the seized high speed diesel was smuggled. On that basis, the detention order was held unsustainable, quashed, and the detenu's release was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order under the COFEPOSA Act was sustainable in the absence of material showing that the seized high speed diesel was smuggled and thus liable to confiscation under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The detention power under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act depends on material showing that the proposed detenue had acted in a manner prejudicial to the prevention of smuggling or allied activities. Under Section 2(39) of the Customs Act, smuggling is linked to goods becoming liable to confiscation under Section 111. The basic premise for invoking the detention order was that the seized diesel had been brought from outside India and was smuggled goods. The record, however, contained only hearsay references in some crew statements, and no statement or other material under Section 108 of the Customs Act established that the goods were smuggled. In matters affecting personal liberty, preventive detention cannot rest on conjecture or hearsay, and the requisite material must clearly support the statutory foundation for detention.

Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the detention order was set aside, and release of the detenu was directed forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention under COFEPOSA cannot be sustained unless there is cogent material showing that the goods involved were smuggled goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act; hearsay evidence is insufficient to establish that statutory foundation.

---