USHA AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-63
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on November 02,2006

USHA AGARWAL Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

K SELVARAJ VS. STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-81] [REFERRED TO]
ROHIT RAMESH DOSHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-11-80] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITHRAMMA T VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(KAR)-2017-4-107] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMED ALI JINNAH VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-11-370] [REFERRED]
RAMKUMAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUCHIRAPPALLI CITY, THIRUCHIRAPPALLI AND STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-254] [REFERRED]
Piar Singh VS. State of H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2008-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA GARG VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-9-310] [REFERRED TO]
TMT G SAROJA VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS [LAWS(MAD)-2010-12-469] [REFERRED]
RATHINAM @ RATHINAKUMAR VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-260] [REFERRED]
D GEETHA VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-231] [REFERRED TO]
NUSHATH KOYAMU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-92] [REFERRED TO]
CHOKKI VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-263] [REFERRED]
KAMARUNISHA VS. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-305] [REFERRED]
KRISHNA LATHA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-11-381] [REFERRED]
JOTHI VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-202] [REFERRED TO]
ELIZEBATH GEORGE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2008-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
INDU MISHRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2010-11-51] [REFERRED TO]
VADIVEL VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-257] [REFERRED]
AL RAMANATHAN AMUTHA AND CO INDIAN OIL DEALER TIRUCHIRAPPALLI VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2008-6-562] [REFERRED TO]
R MOORTHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-467] [REFERRED]
SUNITHA MUJEEB REHMAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2010-10-429] [REFERRED TO]
RANA DUTTA VS. CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY BOARD [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
G. RAVICHANDRAN VS. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHWAYS & MINOR PORTS, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-2-111] [REFERRED TO]
NACHIMUTHU GOUNDER VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2020-12-419] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAB SARKAR VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
S MURUGESAN VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-340] [REFERRED]
G KALAISELVI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-9-123] [REFERRED TO]
MICHEL VS. TAYAPPA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-457] [REFERRED TO]
RUTUGNA ARVINDKUMAR TRIVEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2020-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SONI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(BOM)-2013-11-147] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN AGGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2006-12-47] [REFERRED TO]
BANU VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT AND SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON, MADURAI CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-367] [REFERRED]
RAJBABU VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-248] [REFERRED]
CEEDEEYES STANDARD TOWERS PVT LTD VS. DISTRICT COLLECTER OF CHENNAI,; SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA); COMMISSIONER (ULC); EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD); SECRETARY, HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-231] [REFERRED]
SANTOSH KASHINATH KAMBLE VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-173] [REFERRED TO]
RIBU KURIAN NINAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-12-229] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL SHIL VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-6-56] [REFERRED TO]
NUSHATH KOYAMU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-345] [REFERRED TO]
ANANTHA PNDIAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2012-6-333] [REFERRED TO]
LATHA VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2007-9-161] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHU IRULAYI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-9-163] [REFERRED TO]
M.SATHASIVAM VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-567] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No.3012/2006.
The preventive detention of one Sandip Agarwal ('detenu' for short) under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('COFEPOSA Act' for short) is under challenge in these two matters, namely, criminal appeal by special leave against the judgment dated 21.4.2006 in Writ Petition No.23908/2005 of the Calcutta High Court and a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Both have been filed by the mother of the detenu.

(2.)The facts, in brief, leading to the preventive detention of the detenu, as gathered from the grounds of detention, are as follows - Sandip Agarwal, the detenu, was the Director in-charge of the management of M/s Sandip Exports Ltd., the other Directors being his family members. On receipt of information about irregularities committed by the detenu, a search of the premises of Sandip Exports Ltd. was conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 7.11.2003. The search and the investigations disclosed that M/s. Sandip Exports Ltd. had obtained two Annual Advance Licences dated 28.3.2001 and 22.3.2002 on actual user conditions from the Director General of Foreign Trade, Kolkata, as manufacturer-exporter. The said Annual Advance Licences issued under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Scheme ('DEEC Scheme' for short) enabled the Licensee to import goods free of duty subject to the condition that the Licensee shall manufacture and export products (by utilizing the imported goods) within 18 months, the quantity and value being as specified in the licences in terms of Customs Notification No. 48/99 dated 29.4.1999 as amended from time to time. The detenu imported different types of polyester and silk yarn/fabric, duty free, under the scheme by using the said licences of Sandip Exports Ltd. The duty foregone on importations made under the said two Advance Licences was Rs.14 crores. Instead of utilizing such imported materials in the manufacture of products for exports, he diverted and disposed of the imported goods in the domestic market, and did not fulfil the export obligation. He falsely claimed that the goods for export were manufactured from out of the imported goods through a non-existing manufacturing unit, and through alleged job-workers; and he also falsely claimed that the products so manufactured out of goods imported by Sandip Exports Ltd. were exported through M/s Karan Exports (India) Ltd., another company owned and controlled by detenu's family. In this manner, the detenu indulged in a systematic and organized import-export fraud by importing goods duty-free, under the 'DEEC Scheme' and diverting them to domestic market.
(3.)At the instance of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (the Sponsoring Authority), the Detaining Authority (Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, represented by its Joint Secretary) passed an order of detention dated 19.8.2004 under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. In the grounds in support of the detention order, the detaining authority stated that the action of the detenu in diverting duty free imported goods into the domestic market in violation of the DEEC Scheme Licences, amounted to "smuggling" of goods. The detaining authority also stated that the nature and gravity of the offence and the dubious and fraudulent modus operandi employed by the detenu showed his propensity and potentiality to indulge in such illegal activities in future, necessitating detention to prevent him from continuing such activities.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.