https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184126 Preventive detention under section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act could not rest on a solitary incident alone, because the recorded satisfaction had to show a real basis for apprehension of future smuggling; on the facts, that material was inadequate. The detention also failed because the authority did not consider that the detenu's passport was already in Customs custody, a material circumstance bearing on the likelihood of future travel and smuggling. The Bombay HC therefore treated the non-consideration of that fact as fatal and quashed the detention order. en-us Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:09:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184126 Preventive detention under section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act could not rest on a solitary incident alone, because the recorded satisfaction had to show a real basis for apprehension of future smuggling; on the facts, that material was inadequate. The detention also failed because the authority did not consider that the detenu's passport was already in Customs custody, a material circumstance bearing on the likelihood of future travel and smuggling. The Bombay HC therefore treated the non-consideration of that fact as fatal and quashed the detention order. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184126