MANMOHAN SARIN, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER Sanjay Dogra filed the above petition through his wife Smt. Poonam Dogra praying for quashing of impugned detention order bearing file No. 673/18/2004-Customs-8 dated 30. 11. 2004 passed under Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "cofeposa" Act ). Petitioner prayed for a writ of habeas corpus, to be set at liberty. Petitioner claims to have been picked up by Officers of DRI from his residence, whereafter he was formally arrested and produced before the ACMM, New Delhi on 8. 5. 2004 Petitioner and his associates" statements under Section 108 of the customs Act had been duly recorded. Following this, the petitioner had been placed under arrest under Section 104 of the Customs Act for fraudulent availment of export incentives. Petitioner was granted bail on 7. 7. 2004 following the impugned order of detention on 30. 11. 2004, the appellant was arrested and kept in detention.

( 2 ) THE period of detention is over. The petitioner and his counsel, however, seek quashing of the impugned detention order as the same may have ramifications under SAFEMA and other statutes.

( 3 ) BEFORE considering the petitioner"s challenge to the impugned detention order, the facts as they emerge from the grounds of detention are being set out:-" (i) Information was received in November, 2003 that the petitioner was involved in fraudulent availment of duty drawback and DEPB incentives available to the exporters on the export of readymade garments, leather goods and woolen garments etc. Petitioner is alleged to have adopted an ingenious modus operandi for the fraudulent availment of export incentives. Petitioner set up 10 firms in the name of his brothers and associates as proprietors and exports were shown in the name of these firms. In fact, these firms belonged to and were owned by the petitioner himself. (ii)Petitioner used to collect foreign currency from tourists upon their arrival in India and deposit it in the bank account of the above firms as advance payment from foreign buyers for export orders. Petitioner would give Indian currency to the foreign tourists, who used to buy the goods from the market and hand them over to the petitioner for shipment. Petitioner, in fact, was acting as a freight and forwarding agent. In order to avail the duty drawback and DEPB benefit, petitioner was required to export the goods and realize foreign remittances. For this purpose, he would purchase foreign currency and currency declaration forms from tourists and to deposit them in the bank in the credit of the numerous firms showing them as foreign remittances/advance payment for exports etc. Petitioner through the said firms, over-invoiced the price of goods. The difference between the so-called advance payment and the declared over-invoice price would be met by the petitioner by purchasing foreign currency from local money changers and deposit the same in the banks as export proceeds realized. (iii) Petitioner would submit over-invoiced bills and export documents to the Customs for claiming the export benefits. Letters were generated from the foreign buyers to the effect that foreign currency was being remitted in cash through their representatives, which were prepared by the petitioner in his own office. Petitioner would also generate letters in the name of his firms under his control and submit the same in the bank along with foreign buyers letters prepared in his office and the currency declaration forms obtained from tourists along with foreign currencies. In nut-shell, petitioner used to purchase the foreign currency from the tourists from Russia and other CIS countries, give them Indian currency in lieu. Tourists would make their own purchases in Indian currency and the petitioner through his firms, would over-invoice the goods purchased by the tourists and show advance payment and make up the difference between over-inv