In Brief
A gold smuggler detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) challenged his detention order on three grounds: conflict between Supreme Court precedents on waiting for an Advisory Board decision, a 60-day delay in the Government's consideration of his representation, and being supplied illegible documents in Chinese. The Court held that Pankaj Kumar and Abdullah Kunhi judgments do not conflict—they apply to different authorities under COFEPOSA. The detaining officer must decide independently without waiting for the Board, while the Government may wait for the Board's decision. The Court found no violation regarding the delay. However, since a co-detainee was granted relief for identical illegible Chinese documents, the principle of parity required quashing this appellant's detention order as well.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.