https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468487 Detention under COFEPOSA was sustained where the detaining authority noted that the detenue was in judicial custody, his bail plea had been rejected, and there was a real possibility of release followed by prejudicial activity. The authority also relied on materials stated to have been furnished, including the detention order, grounds and supporting documents, and the detenue acknowledged receipt but made no representation. Compliance with Article 22(5) was found, subjective satisfaction was based on relevant materials, and the objection that the detenue was not linked to the specific seizure was rejected in view of continuing smuggling activity. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 May 2026 14:53:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468487 Detention under COFEPOSA was sustained where the detaining authority noted that the detenue was in judicial custody, his bail plea had been rejected, and there was a real possibility of release followed by prejudicial activity. The authority also relied on materials stated to have been furnished, including the detention order, grounds and supporting documents, and the detenue acknowledged receipt but made no representation. Compliance with Article 22(5) was found, subjective satisfaction was based on relevant materials, and the objection that the detenue was not linked to the specific seizure was rejected in view of continuing smuggling activity. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468487