2006 (7) TMI 594

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etained and kept in custody in the Central Prison of Chennai under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short the 'COFEPOSA Act'). The order of detention was passed under Section 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA Act with a view to prevent the detenu from indulging in smuggling goods in future. The order of detention is dated 20.9.2005. The background facts which led to the detention of the detenu as set out in the grounds of detention are as follows:              On 31.8.2005, the detenu-Ibrahim Nazeer, arrived Chennai from Singapore by Indian Airlines Flight IC 558 with Ticket No. 51671263862. After immigration clearance, he co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ameras, 3 Nos. of Pioneer Car Stereos and 10 Nos. of Motorola V3 mobile phones (without accessories). Examination of Pioneer cardboard carton bearing baggage Tag No. SQ 442 077 resulted in the recovery of 4 Nos. of Panasonic (model No. NV-MD 9000 EN) Digital Video Cameras. It is also stated in the grounds that after fulfilling all the formalities, the value of the seized goods was ascertained. On the date of seizure, the value of the seized goods was Rs.8,22,500/- (CIF) and Rs.11,51,500/- (Market Value) approximately. After finding that the adjudication and prosecution proceedings are likely to be initiated under Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Customs Act'), the State Government after satisfying itself with the materials placed, a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t though the appellant claimed so, the Valuation Rules, 1988 are not applicable to cases of baggage of passengers who are governed by the Baggage Rules, 1988. So far as the plea relating to imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, the High Court noted that the Detaining Authority clearly indicated that it was aware of the fact that the detenu had filed petition for bail on 8.9.2005 which was withdrawn on 17.9.2005. It was also noted that the Detaining Authority was of the view on the basis of the materials collected that the detenu was likely to indulge in activities again while on bail and there was compelling necessity to prevent him from smuggling of goods. Accordingly the habeas corpus petition was dismissed. In support....