Gimik Piotr vs State Of T.Nadu & Ors

He had come to India on earlier occasions for purchase of antiques and garments (Textiles). He came to India for such business on 5.9.2008 and he was due to return to Singapore on 7.9.2008 via Air India flight IC-557. However in the Chennai International Airport, he was intercepted by the customs officers. The detenu stated, that, he was carrying 2300 Pounds and 400 US Dollars only. A search of his baggage revealed currency worth 15,500 Euros, 39,700 US Dollars, 16,200 British Pound and Rs. 30,000/-, adding to Rs. 40,72,878/- pasted to six sheaves of newspapers. The currency was seized under a Mahazar for further action under Customs Act, 1962, read with Regulation 5 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000, for trying to smuggle foreign currency outside the country. The detenu was produced before E.O. II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras on 8.9.2008, who passed 2 an order remanding the appellant to judicial custody. The appellant filed two bail applications, one before the E.O. II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and another before the Court of Sessions. Both the applications are dismissed.

6)The wife of the detenu sent a representation dated 12.9.2008, to the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Chennai, and the same was rejected as well.

7)The Government of Tamil Nadu (respondent no.1), with a view to prevent the appellant from smuggling goods in future, passed detention order against the detenu under Section 3(1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA) and kept him in custody in the Central Prison, Chennai. The detenu requested through a representation dated 14.11.2008 to the Advisory Board to allow him to represent through a lawyer before the Advisory Board to effectively put forth his case. This plea was not considered by the Advisory Board. The detenu being aggrieved by the order of detention passed under the Act dated 04.11.2008 filed a writ petition before the High Court inter-alia questioning the said order on various grounds.

25)Moving over to the second issue, it is not in doubt that the appellant carried foreign currency in person which is in contravention of the amount stated in Regulation 5 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000. The issue in question is, whether, the act of the appellant justifies a preventive detention order to be passed against him. The detention order was passed under Section 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA. The sub-section authorizes the Central Government or the State Government to pass an order of preventive detention to prevent the person from carrying on with the smuggling activities. The reasons stated in the order is that, the appellant is detained as a remand prisoner and thereafter he would be released on bail. Therefore according to respondent no.1, there is possibility that he will indulge in illegal activity and smuggling of goods when out on bail. Para 6 of the detention order goes on to state:-

31)In view of the foregoing discussion, we, after having considered the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides, by our order dated 28.10.2009, had directed the release of the detenu and have now recorded the reasons therefor.