Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA)

The appellant, Kesar Devi, wife of a smuggler detained under COFEPOSA, challenged the forfeiture of three properties under SAFEMA, arguing that the notice under Section 6(1) failed to show a nexus between the properties and the illicit proceeds of her husband and that she could also contest the COFEPOSA detention order…

The husband of petitioner Kavita was detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) to prevent alleged smuggling. He made representations against his detention, which were rejected, and the Advisory Board later reported sufficient cause to…

The petitioner was convicted by a Presidency Magistrate for offences under IPC 120B, the Customs Act and related rules and sentenced to imprisonment of two to four years with a fine. The High Court set aside the conviction, but the Supreme Court restored it. The petitioner had earlier been preventively detained under t…

Alpesh Na Vinchandra Shah and his brother were arrested for mis‑declaring import consignments and evading customs duty. Both were detained under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. They later applied for settlement under section 1278 of the Customs Act; the Settlement Commission accepted full duty payment, granted immuni…

The husband of the petitioner was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) for alleged undervaluation of imported goods. He filed three representations – two to the Joint Secretary (detaining authority) and one to the Central Government – all of which wer…

Biswanath Bhatiacharya, who had been detained under COFEPOSA in the 1970s, was served a notice under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) to explain the source of his wealth, and later a forfeiture order was passed under Section 7. He challenged the…

The Supreme Court examined whether an officer specially empowered under the COFEPOSA Act or the PIT NDPS Act to make a preventive detention order is required to consider the detainee's representation against that order. It held that the officer who makes the order is the detaining authority and must afford the detainee…

The petitioners, detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), challenged the computation of their preventive detention period and the effect of parole on that period. The Supreme Court examined whether the period of detention runs from the date of actu…

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) and the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA), both placed in the Ninth Schedule. It held that Parliament was compe…

The appellant, Bipinchandra Gamanlal Chokshi, was detained on 11 June 1976 under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act, with a simultaneous declaration under Section 12A during a national emergency. The declaration was revoked on 21 March 1977 when the emergency ended, and the appellant was released the same day. He later chal…

The appellant, Pramod Singla, was detained under the COFEPOSA Act for alleged involvement in a gold smuggling syndicate and filed representations to the detaining authority, the Central Government, and the Advisory Board. The Court examined whether there was a conflict between the Pankaj Kumar and Abdullah Kunhi judgme…

Rajinder Arora, an export‑house industrialist, was raided by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 26 May 2004 and detained, during which he alleged torture and coerced statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. No prosecution was filed within the statutory 60‑day period, no show‑cause notice was issued, and…

Om Prakash was detained under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act for allegedly possessing contraband goods. At the Advisory Board hearing he sought to examine five witnesses present to rebut the allegation, but the Board refused and allowed only affidavits, which could not be produced. The Board’s report was forwarded to…

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), which authorises preventive detention of persons whose activities are prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange. They argu…