https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174844 Preventive detention under the Act was considered sustainable where the detenu did not actually seek adjournment or legal assistance before the Advisory Board, so no violation of Articles 14, 21 or 22 was shown. A typographical mismatch in the detention number was treated as a non-fatal clerical error because the order and grounds unmistakably referred to the same detenu. Prior arrests and an earlier quashed detention were treated as relevant background when read with fresh proximate smuggling material, and pre-detention letters addressed to a different authority were not treated as Article 22(5) representations. Allegations of piecemeal processing, blank pages and repeated annexures did not show sham satisfaction, and Section 5A preserved the order on remaining grounds. en-us Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174844 Preventive detention under the Act was considered sustainable where the detenu did not actually seek adjournment or legal assistance before the Advisory Board, so no violation of Articles 14, 21 or 22 was shown. A typographical mismatch in the detention number was treated as a non-fatal clerical error because the order and grounds unmistakably referred to the same detenu. Prior arrests and an earlier quashed detention were treated as relevant background when read with fresh proximate smuggling material, and pre-detention letters addressed to a different authority were not treated as Article 22(5) representations. Allegations of piecemeal processing, blank pages and repeated annexures did not show sham satisfaction, and Section 5A preserved the order on remaining grounds. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174844