https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101486 Statements recorded by Enforcement officers were treated as valid material for the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, supported by the statutory investigatory scheme, de facto doctrine, and the presumption of regularity. Alleged factual inaccuracies in the detention grounds did not show non-application of mind because the grounds had to be read with the supporting material and the errors were not material enough to break the nexus. The claimed non-consideration of a representation to the President was rejected because no such representation was shown to have been made or received. Parole was held distinct from actual detention and was not to be counted in computing the detention period. en-us Wed, 29 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Mar 2014 17:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101486 Statements recorded by Enforcement officers were treated as valid material for the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction, supported by the statutory investigatory scheme, de facto doctrine, and the presumption of regularity. Alleged factual inaccuracies in the detention grounds did not show non-application of mind because the grounds had to be read with the supporting material and the errors were not material enough to break the nexus. The claimed non-consideration of a representation to the President was rejected because no such representation was shown to have been made or received. Parole was held distinct from actual detention and was not to be counted in computing the detention period. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 29 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101486