Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment of a Single Judge in the petition, praying for issuance of Habeas Corpus.
Detention - Delay in executing a detention order, if satisfactorily explained cannot vitiate the detention.

D.K.Jain, J.

1. This appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is directed against judgment and order dated 23-11-2005, passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by the appellant.

2. The appellant is the Managing Director of one M/s. Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana. Specific information was received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Ludhiana that the appellant was engaged in availing fraudulent credits under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book scheme (for short, DEPB scheme), introduced by the Government of India, with the object of encouraging exports. It was alleged that the appellant was misdeclaring the value and description of the goods exported by procuring fake and false bills through one Prabhjot Singh, who was operating three firms, under the name and style of M/s. S. P. Industrial Corporation; M/s. Aaysons (India) and M/s. P. J. Sales Corporation, Ludhiana. The information indicated that non-alloy steel bars, rods etc. of value ranging from Rs. 15.00 to Rs. 17.00 per kilogram were exported in the guise of alloy steel forgings, bars, rods etc. by declaring the value thereof at Rs. 110.00 to Rs. 150.00 per kilogram. The export proceeds over and above the actual price were being routed through Hawala Channel.

3. Based on the said information, the Directorate of Revenue intelligence searched the factory as well as the residential premises of the appellant and that of Prabhjot Singh. During the course of investigation, statements of the appellant, his employees and said Prabhjot Singh were recorded, wherein they are stated to have admitted misdeclaration of the value and description of the goods exported and use of Hawala Channel for remittance as well as over valuation. In his statement, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 , Prabhjot Singh admitted that he had supplied fake bills to the units owned and controlled by the appellant on commission basis, without actually supplying any goods. The appellant had declared the goods exported as "alloy steel", whereas after the tests were conducted by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi, the goods were found to be "other than alloy steel", i.e. non-alloy. The Consul (Economic), Consulate General of India at Dubai also confirmed the existence of a parallel set of export invoices. Invoices with a higher value were presented before the Indian Customs in order to avail DEPB incentives, but invoices, with a lower value, were presented for clearance.

4. Statements of major suppliers of raw materials of non-alloy steel as well as alloy steel to the units of the appellant were also recorded and it transpired that majority of the supplies related to non-alloy steel items and that the material, purchased by the appellant, was of much lower in value than declared by him. In order to cover the bogus exports, the appellant procured false and fake invoices from the units of Prabhjot Singh and the amounts, realised by the export proceeds over and above the actual value, were routed through Hawala Channel through one Raju. It was also discovered that accounts in the name of Prabhjot Singhs firms were actually operated by the appellant through his employees, who confessed to the said fact. Some blank cheques, signed by Prabhjot Singh, were also recovered from the appellant. Enquiries made from the Production Manager of .appellants company also revealed that at no point of time, "alloy steel" had been processed and that no facility whatsoever existed in their factory for making alloy steel goods.

5. It was on these facts, briefly referred to above, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, COFEPOSA Act) the Detaining Authority passed an order of detention against the appellant on 5-4-2005, The order of detention is based on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that with