https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430513 Preventive detention was upheld where the detaining authority acted on the materials actually available to the sponsoring authority, and omission of documents not shown to be in its possession did not vitiate subjective satisfaction. Delay in passing and executing the detention order was explained by the scale of the smuggling inquiry and the detenu's evasion of process, so the live and proximate link was not broken. Non-supply of documents not relied on, or not shown to be necessary for an effective representation, did not infringe Article 22(5). Representation was also not invalidly delayed where prompt rejection by the detaining authority was followed by consideration after the Advisory Board process as permitted by the facts. en-us Wed, 09 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Nov 2022 09:54:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430513 Preventive detention was upheld where the detaining authority acted on the materials actually available to the sponsoring authority, and omission of documents not shown to be in its possession did not vitiate subjective satisfaction. Delay in passing and executing the detention order was explained by the scale of the smuggling inquiry and the detenu's evasion of process, so the live and proximate link was not broken. Non-supply of documents not relied on, or not shown to be necessary for an effective representation, did not infringe Article 22(5). Representation was also not invalidly delayed where prompt rejection by the detaining authority was followed by consideration after the Advisory Board process as permitted by the facts. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 09 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430513