https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274413 The court found that the Detaining Authority erred in invoking Section 123 of the Customs Act as the detenu was not the possessor of the seized goods. Additionally, the court noted the denial of assistance of counsel but did not delve into it due to the primary ground for quashing the detention order. The Detaining Authority was criticized for deriving two inconsistent satisfactions, leading to a lack of genuine subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the detention order was quashed, resulting in the immediate release of the detenu. en-us Mon, 03 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Aug 2018 11:06:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274413 The court found that the Detaining Authority erred in invoking Section 123 of the Customs Act as the detenu was not the possessor of the seized goods. Additionally, the court noted the denial of assistance of counsel but did not delve into it due to the primary ground for quashing the detention order. The Detaining Authority was criticized for deriving two inconsistent satisfactions, leading to a lack of genuine subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the detention order was quashed, resulting in the immediate release of the detenu. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 03 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274413