https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783951 Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was examined against Article 22(5) safeguards, and the discussion states that detention was not vitiated where the pen drive contents had been shown to the detenue, the Kannada pages were not part of the relied upon material, and the alleged truncation was only a photocopy defect. It further notes that subjective satisfaction was supported by custody status, repeated bail rejection, and material indicating travel-linked smuggling activity and a wider network, so non-application of mind was not established. The document also states that no enforceable right to legal counsel or a friend before the Advisory Board was shown, and the detention order was sustained. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783951 Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was examined against Article 22(5) safeguards, and the discussion states that detention was not vitiated where the pen drive contents had been shown to the detenue, the Kannada pages were not part of the relied upon material, and the alleged truncation was only a photocopy defect. It further notes that subjective satisfaction was supported by custody status, repeated bail rejection, and material indicating travel-linked smuggling activity and a wider network, so non-application of mind was not established. The document also states that no enforceable right to legal counsel or a friend before the Advisory Board was shown, and the detention order was sustained. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783951