https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48378 A preventive detention order under COFEPOSA was upheld on delay, because the interval between seizure, investigation, arrest and the detention proposal showed continuing inquiry and no undue delay in disposal of the representation. The order was nevertheless invalidated for non-application of mind, as it relied on earlier consignments that were only under notice or inquiry and had not resulted in any final finding of Customs Act contravention; such inconclusive material could not support the requisite subjective satisfaction. The High Court's criminal directions and costs order in the habeas corpus proceeding were also set aside as beyond the scope of that challenge. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48378 A preventive detention order under COFEPOSA was upheld on delay, because the interval between seizure, investigation, arrest and the detention proposal showed continuing inquiry and no undue delay in disposal of the representation. The order was nevertheless invalidated for non-application of mind, as it relied on earlier consignments that were only under notice or inquiry and had not resulted in any final finding of Customs Act contravention; such inconclusive material could not support the requisite subjective satisfaction. The High Court's criminal directions and costs order in the habeas corpus proceeding were also set aside as beyond the scope of that challenge. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48378