Concealment of dutiable goods can amount to smuggling, and job termination alone may not negate future prejudicial conduct.

Concealment and attempted removal of dutiable goods from the customs area is treated as smuggling where the goods are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, and the conduct need not be confined to mere abetment or facilitation. The article notes that such activity falls within the mischief of sections 111(i) and 111(j), making it relevant for preventive detention under COFEPOSA. It also explains that termination of courier employment does not by itself negate the likelihood of future prejudicial activity where the detaining authority is aware of that change and the alleged conduct reflects organised smuggling activity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detenu's conduct in removing dutiable goods from courier bags and concealing them in another bag amounted to smuggling for the purposes of preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act. (ii) Whether termination of the detenu's courier employment negatived the likelihood of his future involvement in prejudicial activities and showed non-application of mind by the detaining authority.

Issue (i): Whether the detenu's conduct in removing dutiable goods from courier bags and concealing them in another bag amounted to smuggling for the purposes of preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act.

Analysis: Smuggling was held to include any act or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. The concealment and attempted removal of RAM cards from the customs area without payment of duty fell within the mischief of Section 111(i) and Section 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962. The activity was therefore not a mere case of abetment or facilitation, but amounted to smuggling within the statutory definition.

Conclusion: The contention that the detenu's acts amounted only to abetment failed, and the preventive detention on the ground of smuggling was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether termination of the detenu's courier employment negatived the likelihood of his future involvement in prejudicial activities and showed non-application of mind by the detaining authority.

Analysis: The record showed that the detaining authority was aware of the termination of employment and still formed the view that, given the organised nature of the smuggling operation and the detenu's role in it, he could continue such activities by obtaining fresh access or by other means. The mere cessation of employment did not eliminate the possibility of future prejudicial conduct.

Conclusion: The challenge based on termination of employment and alleged non-application of mind was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was sustained as both challenges failed and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For preventive detention under the smuggling law, concealment and attempted unauthorized removal of dutiable goods from the customs area constitutes smuggling where the goods are liable to confiscation, and a change in employment status does not by itself negate future propensity to engage in organised prejudicial activity.

---