https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299971 Preventive detention is sustained where the delay in executing the order does not break the live-link between past prejudicial activity and the need for detention, especially when the detenu was absconding and the delay is satisfactorily explained. The detention grounds were upheld because they were supported by relevant material, including witness statements, travel arrangements and corroborative facts linking the detenu to a smuggling operation; preventive detention does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, and minor discrepancies did not vitiate subjective satisfaction. No breach of Article 22(5) was established, as the detenue was served with the grounds and no denial of an effective opportunity to represent was shown. The detention order was sustained. en-us Mon, 05 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jan 2022 08:47:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299971 Preventive detention is sustained where the delay in executing the order does not break the live-link between past prejudicial activity and the need for detention, especially when the detenu was absconding and the delay is satisfactorily explained. The detention grounds were upheld because they were supported by relevant material, including witness statements, travel arrangements and corroborative facts linking the detenu to a smuggling operation; preventive detention does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, and minor discrepancies did not vitiate subjective satisfaction. No breach of Article 22(5) was established, as the detenue was served with the grounds and no denial of an effective opportunity to represent was shown. The detention order was sustained. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 05 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299971