2005 (11) TMI 465

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA'). The grounds of detention are that the appellant holding an Indian passport arrived from Singapore by Indian Airlines flight on 28.12.2003. He had one checked-in baggage with him namely, a JVC colour T.V. 20". He was intercepted by the Custom Intelligence Officers near the exit gate of the Anna International Terminal while he was going out of the hall opting for the green channel. Since he was suspected to be carrying contraband in his baggage, he was intercepted and the two baggages with him were searched. Since the T.V. set was found to be unusually heavy, it was dismantled and it was found that the picture tube was tampered with. The picture tube was broken open and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ary 9, 2004. It is not disputed before us that if such a document had been sent to the concerned authority, it was a document which was relevant and ought to have been considered by the detaining authority. In view of the admitted position, the only matter to be examined is whether the appellant had sent a letter of retraction to the concerned authority. It is not disputed before us that the letter was addressed to the Superintendent of Customs (Air), Customs House, Chennai-1 and was sent through the Counsel for the appellant. The receipt disclosed that the letter was received on 7.1.2004 and the acknowledgment contains the seal of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication-AIR), Customs House, Chennai-1. These facts are not in dis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that, provided the letter was handed over to the concerned authority. The question, however, is who should be considered to be the concerned authority in the facts and circumstances of this case. We cannot accept the contention urged on behalf of the respondents that the letter should have been addressed to the sponsoring authority in this case namely the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai-1 on whose recommendation the detaining authority passed the order of detention. This is because the date on which the said retraction was made and communicated by the appellant, no detention order had been passed and therefore, there was no question of the detenu knowing that the communication has to be addressed....