23 April 2024 Corruption >> Criminal Law   |   Custom Duty >> Tax Laws  

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging a detention order passed against a man accused of smuggling diesel oil in 2005. The petition was filed by the man's widow after his death in 2010.

Facts:

Sayyed Hussain Madar, the deceased, was allegedly involved in smuggling a large quantity of diesel oil in 2004. The authorities, acting under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), issued a detention order against him in 2005 to prevent him from future smuggling activities. While Madar initially challenged the order in court, he later withdrew the petition with the right to raise objections if proceedings were initiated under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (SAFEMA). The detention order itself was only served on Madar in 2006 after multiple attempts due to difficulties in locating him.

Widow Challenges Order After SAFEMA Proceedings Initiated:

Following Madar's death, SAFEMA proceedings were initiated against his legal heirs in 2019. In response, Madar's widow filed a petition challenging the original detention order. She argued that the order was invalid because her husband did not understand English, the language it was served in, and that the delay in serving the order violated his rights. Additionally, she contested the justification for labeling him a smuggler.

Court Rejects Arguments, Detention Order Upheld:

The High Court dismissed the widow's petition. The court found no evidence that Madar did not understand English and pointed out a statement he made where he acknowledged understanding the language. The court also ruled that the delay in serving the order was a result of Madar's attempts to avoid service. Finally, the court determined that there was sufficient evidence to support Madar's involvement in smuggling activities.

SAFEMA Proceedings Remain Separate Issue:

The court clarified that the SAFEMA proceedings are separate from the detention order and the widow can raise any objections she has during those proceedings. The court, however, did not comment on the delay in initiating the SAFEMA action.

This case highlights the challenges faced by authorities in preventing smuggling activities and the importance of ensuring proper service of legal orders. It also emphasizes the right of individuals to contest such orders and the separate procedures for forfeiture of illegally acquired properties.

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974    

Customs Act, 1962