JUDGMENT

Siddharth Mridul, J. - These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, essentially in the nature of writ of habeas corpus, have been instituted on behalf of Gopal Gupta, the petitioner in W.P.(CRL.) 1829/2020 and Amit Pal Singh, the petitioner in W.P.(CRL.) 1830/2020 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'detenu'), praying for quashing of detention orders bearing No. PD-12001/01/2020-COFEPOSA and PD-12001/02/2020-COFEPOSA respectively, both dated 21.01.2020, and for further directions that the detenu be set at liberty forthwith.

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

2. The relevant facts qua the detenus, as are necessary for the adjudication of the subject writ petitions are briefly encapsulated as follows: -

i) Both the detainees are statedly employees of a company namely, M/s. Its My Name Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'IMNPL').

ii) IMNPL is a government recognized three star export house, engaged in the business of manufacturing, import and export of gold jewellery and other allied bullion items.

iii) IMNPL has been duly issued an Import Export Code (IEC) bearing No.0514037342 from the office of the Joint Director, Directorate General of Foreign Trade (hereinafter referred to as 'DGFT') and is stated to have earned foreign exchange valuing around 150 million USD for the country.

iv) IMNPL has also obtained Advance Authorization Licence from the office of DGFT, New Delhi, inter alia permitting import of 1000 kgs of gold bars.

v) IMNPL has against the said Advance Authorization Licence imported 50 kgs of gold bars and completed export obligation of approximately 19 kgs of gold bars vide Export Invoice No.ITS/EXP/04 dated 20.04.2019; with balance export obligation of approximately 31 kgs.

vi) At this juncture, it is relevant to observe that the stock related to the aforementioned balance export obligation, was resumed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRF) on 24-25.04.2019, from the factory premises of IMNPL at Pitampura, Delhi.

vii) It is the detenus' case that similar licences have been duly issued in the past as well and that export obligations thereunder have been duly fulfilled by IMNPL.

viii) IMNPL also purchased gold form the domestic market, duty and GST in relation to which has been duly paid; besides directly importing gold under the Advance Authorization Scheme, as afore-stated.

ix) IMNPL is stated to have exported domestic gold jewellery under the Exhibition Export Scheme of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP 2015-20)

x) At this stage, it is relevant to observe that as per Para 4.46 of FTP, read with Para 4.80 of the Hand Book of Procedure, domestic jewellery can be exported for exhibitions abroad with the approval of Gems & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (hereinafter referred to as 'GJEPC'), which approval was granted to IMNPL subject to the condition that unsold gold jewellery has to be re-imported back within 60 days from the close of such exhibition, failing which they would become liable to pay import duty on the quantity of the said re-import. Further, as per Customs Notification No.45/17 dated 30.06.2017, the condition for exemption is that, the goods that are re-imported from such exhibition abroad are required to be the same which were exported.

xi) IMNPL had, with the approval of GJEPC, exported gold jewellery manufactured from the domestic stock of gold for overseas exhibition. It is, therefore, the detenus' case that, evidently there was no duty payment required at the stage of re