Preventive detention under COFEPOSA upheld where past conduct showed a continuing propensity to smuggling and representations were duly considered.

Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was upheld where fraudulent export activity without actual movement of goods and a related black pepper scheme showed a continuing propensity to engage in smuggling. The Court held that a live and proximate link can be found from the whole chain of conduct and surrounding material, and that such activity falls within the statutory concept of smuggling under the Customs Act, supporting the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. It also found no vitiation from any unproved retraction, no prejudice from non-supply of irrelevant or illegible documents, and no breach of Article 22(5) because the representations were duly considered within a reasonable time. The detention order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether there was a live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the order of detention; (ii) whether the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was vitiated because the alleged acts did not amount to smuggling; (iii) whether non-consideration or non-supply of alleged retractions and other materials vitiated the detention; (iv) whether the non-supply of additional documents and legible copies caused prejudice or impaired the right to make an effective representation; (v) whether the representations were considered mechanically or with delay so as to infringe Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether there was a live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the order of detention.

Analysis: The detention was founded on a chain of events involving fraudulent export activity without physical movement of goods and a separate black pepper case, both supported by statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and contemporaneous investigative material. The Court held that preventive detention depends on a reasonable prognosis of future conduct based on past conduct and surrounding circumstances, and that proximity is not to be tested mechanically by lapse of time alone. The material showed continuing investigative activity, repeated involvement, and a propensity to repeat similar conduct.

Conclusion: The live and proximate link was held to exist, and this issue was decided against the detenu.

Issue (ii): whether the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was vitiated because the alleged acts did not amount to smuggling.

Analysis: The Court read the definition of smuggling under section 2(39) of the Customs Act, 1962 with the confiscatory provisions under sections 111 and 113 of that Act and held that export on paper without actual physical export, as well as the black pepper import scheme, fell within the statutory concept of smuggling. The detaining authority was therefore entitled to treat the activities as prejudicial and to form satisfaction under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act.

Conclusion: The subjective satisfaction was upheld, and this issue was decided against the detenu.

Issue (iii): whether non-consideration or non-supply of alleged retractions and other materials vitiated the detention.

Analysis: The Court found no established or duly served retraction of the statement recorded from the detenu under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The materials showed only liberty to file a retraction petition, not a proved and communicated retraction placed before the authorities. The later statement of the detenu also reaffirmed the earlier statement without disclosing any retraction. The Court further held that the relied upon materials were substantially before the detaining authority and that the challenged omissions did not dislodge the basis of detention.

Conclusion: No vitiating non-consideration or non-supply was found, and this issue was decided against the detenu.

Issue (iv): whether the non-supply of additional documents and legible copies caused prejudice or impaired the right to make an effective representation.

Analysis: The Court held that only documents relied upon for the detention had to be supplied, while documents merely referred to narrate facts did not attract the same obligation. It found that requests for certification under section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, for summons, and for certain other papers were either irrelevant or not shown to be prejudicial. The complaints about illegibility were also treated as belated and unsupported by specific particulars, and the detenue's conduct suggested an attempt to delay the proceedings rather than a genuine inability to represent himself.

Conclusion: No prejudice from non-supply or illegibility was established, and this issue was decided against the detenu.

Issue (v): whether the representations were considered mechanically or with delay so as to infringe Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that the authorities had considered the representations and replied to them within a reasonable time. It reiterated that the law does not require a speaking order in the same manner as a judicial decision, only real and proper consideration. On the facts, the replies disclosed due application of mind and the detenue's own delay undermined the plea of procedural unfairness.

Conclusion: The representations were held to have been duly considered, and this issue was decided against the detenu.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was sustained on all material grounds, with the Court holding that the statutory threshold for preventive detention was met and that no procedural or substantive infirmity warranted interference.

Ratio Decidendi: For preventive detention under COFEPOSA, past conduct may justify detention if it shows a proximate and continuing propensity to engage in smuggling, and the authority may rely on statements and materials that form the basis of subjective satisfaction, provided the relied upon documents are supplied and any alleged retraction is not established as duly placed before the authority.

---