TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (9) TMI 1046
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter being satisfied that his detention was necessary to prevent him in future from smuggling the goods. The detention order is placed on the file of the writ petition as Annexure A and grounds in support thereof are at Exhibit B. The detention order came to be passed in the back drop of facts that on 3-7-1999, the officer attached to the Commissionarate of Customs (General) seized 150 gold bars from Sayed Karim Gaffoor. The statements under section 108 of the Customs Act were recorded including that of the detenu. During the course of enquiry, on the basis of the material collected by the concerned authorities and in the search of residential as well as office premises of the detenu, the authorities found involvement of the detenu in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned detention order against the detenu as it is a document of vital nature before arriving at his subjective satisfaction. The petitioner says and submits that non-consideration of the said vital document by the detaining authority has impaired the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority. The impugned detention order on the basis of such subjective satisfaction is sham and unreal. The petitioner says and submits that it was not only incumbent upon the detaining authority to have considered the same, but it was incumbent upon the detaining authority to have supply the copy of the said reply to the show cause notice to the detenu alongwith the grounds of detention. The petitioner says and submits that in the eye of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted by the detenu to the Commissioner of Customs was placed by the sponsoring authority before the Detaining Authority what would have been the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority could have reached satisfaction either way. From any reckoning, reply submitted by the detenu in response to the show cause notice was materially relevant and vital which was necessarily required to be placed before the Detaining Authority. We are fortified in our view from the observations made by the Apex Court in Kurjibhai Dhanjibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & others, 1985(1) Scale Pg. 136 wherein the Apex Court held that reply to the show cause notice in adjudication proceedings by detenu certainly had a bearing and would have i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing, obviously the reply of the detenu to the show cause notice which is of firm denial could have made the difference. In any case what would have been the ultimate outcome is not material, but what is material is the consideration of the complete material by the detaining authority including reply to the show cause notice submitted by the detenu when the show cause notice was placed by the sponsoring authority before the Detaining Authority. Post facto consideration of reply to the show cause notice submitted by detenu at the time of filing of affidavit in reply and the assertion that the consideration of reply would not have made difference cannot rectify the grave error occured due to non-consideration of reply at the time of issuance o....