A. P. RAVANI, J. U. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) (II) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the show cause notice under Sec. 124 of the Customs Act 1962 and Sec. 79 of the Gold Control Act 1968 was served upon the petitioner-detenu asking him to show cause as to why the gold seized should not be confiscated and why they should not be penalised under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-detenu had submitted reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 1-8-1988 (Annexure `e to the petition) but the said reply was not placed before the detaining authority. Therefore the relevant material which was favourable to the detenu has not been brought to the notice of the detaining authority and hence the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority stands vitiated. It is an undisputed position that the reply submitted by the detenu to the show-cause notice has not been placed before the detaining authority and the detaining authority has passed the order of detention without going through the reply submitted by the detenu. However we have examined the show cause notice as well as the reply. The show cause notice has been issued by the Additional Collector Customs (Preventive) while the reply has been addressed to the Additional Collector of Customs. It has not been addressed to the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive) Submission of reply to the authority Officer who has not issued the show cause notice is no submission of reply at all. There may be and in fact there are more than one Additional Collector of Customs working in the Customs House at Ahmedabad. Therefore the reply submitted by the detenu might have gone to the Additional Collector of Customs who might not be dealing with the preventive branch of the Customs Department. Unless it is shown that the detenu had submitted the reply to the show cause notice to the authority Officer issuing the show cause notice the question of consideration or non-consideration of the same by the Sponsoring Authority and placing the same before the detaining authority does not arise at all. Unless it is shown that the detenu had submitted the reply to the show cause notice to the authority Officer issuing the show cause notice the question of consideration or non-consideration of the same by the Sponsoring Authority and placing the same before the detaining authority does not arise at all. In view of this factual position we need not consider and we do not consider as to whether it was necessary for the sponsoring authority to place the reply to the show cause notice before the detaining authority or not. Therefore this contention also fails. Rule discharged. .