Muthumariappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated:27.09.2006Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAMandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. TAMILVANANHabeas Corpus Petition No.391 of 2006 Muthumariappan.. Petitioner/Detenuvs.

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government Public (SC) Department Fort St. George, Chennai 60 009.

The Union of India rep. by The Secretary to the Government Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (COFEPOSA-UNIT), New Delhi.

The Superintendent of Central Prison Central Prison, Chennai 600 003... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.B.Kumar, SC for Mr. S. PalanikumarFor respondents : Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran1 and 3 Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. P. Kumaresan, ACGSC for R.2 ORDER(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.)In this petition, the petitioner by name Muthumariappan, challenges his detention order dated 30.03.2006 passed by the first respondent herein, detaining him under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of ForeignExchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52of 1974). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 3 and learnedAdditional Central Government standing counsel for second respondent.3. At the foremost, Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the detenu disputed the value of the goods seized by the Customs Department, even after the order of the AdditionalChief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I, Chennai to refix the value within 25days from the date of receipt of the order, the failure on the part of the officials to comply with the same vitiates the impugned order of detention. He further contended that inasmuch as the valuation ismaterial/jurisdictional aspect, detention order passed by the detaining authority without taking note of the Circular issued by the CentralGovernment and the directions issued by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind.

Elaborating the above contentions, learned senior counsel submitted that it is the definite case of the detenu that the seized goods were of lesser value, but the officers assessed the same excessively. Itis stated that the assessment of the officers is not supported by any cogent material and it is contrary to the customs valuation. It is also brought to our notice that the detenu has requested the sponsoring authority to consider and revalue the seized goods by way of representation, but the sponsoring authority failed to revalue the goods seized under mahazar. In this regard, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed before us the order of the Additional ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I, Chennai-8, dated 21.03.2006 made inM.P.No.662 of 2006. The said petition was filed by thepetitioner/accused/detenu seeking direction to the respondent, viz.,Superintendent of Customs (Air) Prosecution Unit, Customs House, Chennaito revalue the goods under seizure in R.R.No.5/2006 and the learned Judge, by order dated 21.03.2006, accepted the case of the petitioner and issued direction to revalue the goods under seizure in R.R.No.5/2006 within 25days from the date of order.

The Courts have oft-repeatedly held that consideration of representation is not an empty formality, particularly when several details, such as orders/valuation fixed in respect of similar goods by the authorities are referred and it is but proper on the part of the Government to get the remarks from the officers concerned and pass aspeaking order in one way or the other. We are satisfied that such recourse has not been followed in the present case. As observed earlier, even the Department has not complied with the order of the AdditionalChief Metropolitan Magistrate, but only filed a revision before this Courtbelatedly wherein no interim order has been obtained.

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also brought to our notice, the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) in O.S.No.287 of2005 - AIR dated 30.06.2005, wherein the Joint Commissioner of Customs(AIR), Anna International Airport, Chennai has fixed the value of NikonSpeed light SB 800 Flash gun with accessories at the rate of Rs.7,100/-per unit, whereas the same product was valued at the rate of Rs.9,000/- in the case of the detenu. For that, there is no explanation at all on the side of the respondents. It is also brought to our notice that the above referred order of the Joint Commissioner of Customs dated 30.06.2005became final and the Customs authorities accepted the said valuation. Inthis regard, it is brought to our notice the decision of the Calcutta HighCourt in the case of Ghanshyam Chejra vs. Collector of Customs reported in1989 (44) ELT 202 (Cal.), wherein it is held that, "28. ..... Once the Customs Authorities have accepted the valuation, they should be bound by their precedents and estopped from acting to the contrary".We are in agreement with the said conclusion. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

It is also relevant to note that even in the grounds of detention in para 1 (xvi) the detaining authority has stated, "that the Government have taking into consideration the averments / contentions contained in the representations and bail petition, but from the materials placed on record, the Government are satisfied that the same are baseless, devoid of merit and hence the Government reject the same except the portion regarding valuation of goods. "The above conclusion amply shows that in so far as the valuation of goods is concerned, the detaining authority also accepted that the assessment by the Department is excessive and not correct.