https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389747 Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was tested only for compliance with constitutional and procedural safeguards, not by reappraising the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. The Court noted that limited judicial review under Article 226 extends to checking whether Article 22 safeguards and other procedural requirements were observed, and found sufficient material supporting detention, including statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the Advisory Board's opinion. The arguments based on no recovery, suspension from service, and alleged discrimination did not establish a legal infirmity. No ground for interference was made out, and the detention order was upheld. en-us Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:43:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389747 Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was tested only for compliance with constitutional and procedural safeguards, not by reappraising the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction. The Court noted that limited judicial review under Article 226 extends to checking whether Article 22 safeguards and other procedural requirements were observed, and found sufficient material supporting detention, including statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the Advisory Board's opinion. The arguments based on no recovery, suspension from service, and alleged discrimination did not establish a legal infirmity. No ground for interference was made out, and the detention order was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389747