Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. The detenu who was detained under the detention order in G.O.SRI/909-5/2003, Public (S.C) Department dated 25-7-2003 under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ("COFEPOSA" in short) is the petitioner in the above petition. 2. The brief facts which are required for the disposal of the above petition are stated hereunder: According to the detenu, he has started a company under the name and style of M/s. S.I. International, Chennai. One Sirajudeen of Singapore has sent goods from Singapore and requested the detenu to clear the same on payment of duty. As per the information furnished by the said Sirajudeen, the detenu has signed the blank bill of entry, presented by an unknown person, the value, nature and quantity of the goods were not filled by the detenu as he does not know English. The clearing agents have filled the bill of entry on the instructions of the Singapore based Sirajudeen or his agent. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I) and Customs officers have seized the goods on the allegation that the detenu has deliberately misdeclared the value and quantity of the imported goods. The detenu is an illiterate and innocent person and he never knowingly concerned in the commission of offences under the Customs Act. The detenu has no bad antecedents. The detenu is not the owner of the alleged contrabands and he is not the beneficiary also. He does not know English. His mother tongue is Tamil. On coercion and tutor the officers of the Customs and D.R.I. obtained confessional statements. The detenu has not given any voluntary incriminating statements. At present, the detenu is confined in Central Prison, Chennai-3. 3. Heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A. Navaneethakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2; and Mrs. Vanathi Srinivasan, learned Additional Central Government Standing counsel for 2nd respondent. 4. (a) Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and other materials, would contend that inasmuch as the detenu was not furnished with import documents along with the detention order, the said order cannot be sustained. He also contended that since the detenu was only an agent of one Sirajudeen of Singapore, being single and solitary act of alleged smuggling cannot provide the basis for detaining under COFEPOSA Act. He also contended that since the detenu was only an agent of one Sirajudeen of Singapore, being single and solitary act of alleged smuggling cannot provide the basis for detaining under COFEPOSA Act. Since the detenu studied only upto 4th Standard, he does not know any other language other than Tamil, Tamil version of required documents have not been furnished. He further contended that in the absence of subjective satisfaction and of the fact that the officers are not proper officers as per the Act, the detention order is liable to be quashed. (ii) On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the detenu was supplied all the relevant documents, including bill of entry which is the core document, and he was supplied Tamil version of all the relied on documents. He further contended that since all officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence are authorised officers, the action taken against the detenu cannot be faulted with. According to him, on subjective satisfaction and after considering all the materials, the detaining authority has passed the impugned order and there is no merit in the present petition. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 6. We are conscious of the fact that there is no need to go into the merits of the charge levelled against the detenu, however, it is the duty and responsibility of the detaining authority to establish that only on subjective satisfaction the petitioner was detained under COFEPOSA and the impugned detention order was passed. It is seen from the grounds of detention that the petitioner imported by his company namely M/s. S.I. International, Chennai. While clearing the goods, the petitioner filed a bill of entry No. 501261 dated 18-6-2003 through the Customs House clearing agent and declaration in the bill of entry that he imported 112 pieces of "ATX Casing with SMPS" with an assessable value of Rs.85,247/-. It is further seen that on suspicion, the respondent officers examined the said consignment imported in the name of S.I. International, and found that the consignment containing 400 numbers of Sanden Compressor of different brands (used for car air conditioners) as against the declared cargo of 112 pieces of 'ATX' casing with SMPS. The said 400 Nos. It is further seen that on suspicion, the respondent officers examined the said consignment imported in the name of S.I. International, and found that the consignment containing 400 numbers of Sanden Compressor of different brands (used for car air conditioners) as against the declared cargo of 112 pieces of 'ATX' casing with SMPS. The said 400 Nos. of Sanden compressors of different brands and 49 pieces of mercury Oscar brand computer case with Exhaust fan all having a total market value of Rs.42 lakhs and the same were seized under mahazar dated 18-6-2002. Since the petitioner himself declared the value and quantity of the goods, the case was registered under the Customs Act. 7. Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contended that inasmuch as (a) bill of entry; (b) invoices are vital import documents, they being not furnished to the detenu along with the detention order, the same vitiates. In support of his claim, he very much relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Icchu Devi v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1983. While considering the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act, the Supreme Court has held that if there are any documents, statements or other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention, they must also be communicated to the detenu, because being incorporated in the grounds of detention, they form part of the grounds and the grounds furnished to the detenu cannot be said to be complete without them. 8. In Shalini Soni v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 431, the Supreme Court has also held that copies of documents to which reference is made in the "grounds" must be supplied to the detenu as part of the "grounds". It was further held that failure to communicate the factual material would amount to non- communication of grounds on which the order of detention has been made and thus would infringe Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Similar view has been expressed in Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 618. 9. There is no dispute that if the detaining authority relies upon any document, undoubtedly the detenu is entitled copy of those documents. In other words, it is incumbent on the part of the detaining authority to supply copy of all "relied upon documents". 9. There is no dispute that if the detaining authority relies upon any document, undoubtedly the detenu is entitled copy of those documents. In other words, it is incumbent on the part of the detaining authority to supply copy of all "relied upon documents". In so far as "referred to documents", though there is no obligation on the part of the detaining authority, however, if the detenu establishes prejudice due to non supply of the same, he is entitled copies of the same. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, "import document" consists of (a) bill of entry; (b) invoice. Though copy of bill of entry was furnished to the detenu, copy of invoice has not been supplied to him. Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 refers to entry of goods on importation: "Section 46. Entry of goods on importation (1) The importer of any goods, other than goods intended for transit or transhipment, shall make entry thereof by presenting to the proper officer a bill of entry for home consumption or warehousing in the prescribed form: Provided xx xx (2) Save as otherwise permitted by the proper officer, a bill of entry shall include all the goods mentioned in the bill of lading or other receipt given by the carrier to the consignor. (3) xx xx (4) The importer while presenting a bill of entry shall at the foot thereof make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of the contents of such bill of entry and shall, in support of such declaration, produce to the proper officer the invoice, if any, relating to the imported goods. (5) xx xx" Apart from the said provision, Customs Manual provides number of regulations to be fulfilled. Every importer is required to file in terms of section 46 an entry (which is called Bill of entry) for home consumption or warehousing in the form, as prescribed by regulations. Chapter 3 of the Customs Manual speaks about procedure for clearance of imported and export goods. If the goods are cleared through the EDI system, no formal Bill of Entry is filed as it is generated in the computer system, but the importer is required to file a cargo declaration having prescribed particulars required for processing of the entry for customs clearance. If the goods are cleared through the EDI system, no formal Bill of Entry is filed as it is generated in the computer system, but the importer is required to file a cargo declaration having prescribed particulars required for processing of the entry for customs clearance. The Bill of Entry, where filed, is to be submitted in a set, different copies meant for different purposes and also given different colour scheme, and on the body of the bill of entry the purpose for which it will be used is generally mentioned in the non-EDI declaration. The Manual also provides that while filing the Bill of Entry and giving various particulars as prescribed therein, the correctness of the information given has also to be certified by the importer in the form a declaration at the foot of the bill of entry and any mis-declaration/incorrect declaration has legal consequences, and due precautions should be taken by importer while signing these declarations. It further says that under the EDI system, the importer does not submit documents, but submits declaration in electronic formal containing all the relevant information to the Service Centre. After noting/registration of the bill of entry, it is forwarded manually or electronically to the concerned Appraising Group in the Custom House dealing with the commodity sought to be cleared. Appraising Wing of the Custom House has a number of Groups dealing with earmarked commodities falling under different Chapter Headings of the Customs Tariff and they take up further scrutiny for assessment, import permissibility etc., angle. 10. In the light of the above statutory provisions, let us consider whether the detaining authority arrived a subjective satisfaction before passing an order of detention. According to Ground XI of the detention shows that when the detenu was arrested on 21-6-2003 and produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I, Egmore, Chennai, who remanded him to judicial custody till 3-7-2003 and at the time of remand, the detenu did not make any complaint against the officers or dispute the statement given by him to the officers. It is further seen that in pursuance of the summons issued by the D.R.I., S. Ganesh, working as clerk in the Eastern Maritime (Private) Limited, appeared and gave statement. It is further seen that in pursuance of the summons issued by the D.R.I., S. Ganesh, working as clerk in the Eastern Maritime (Private) Limited, appeared and gave statement. He made a statement before the officers that he came to know that the bill was used for the importer, namely M/s. S.I. International on 19-6-2003 and the goods covered by the said bill had been seized on 18-6-2003 by the D.R.I. officers. As said earlier, the bill of entry concerned with the detenu is 501261 dated 18-6-2003. A copy of the said bill of entry has been furnished to the detenu which contains all the details, such as name and address of the importer, quantity, port of loading, supplier details, value of the goods, value declaration etc. At the end an officer representing Eastern Maritime Private Limited has signed in the bill of entry. On the right hand side, though it is mentioned the name of the importer, namely, S.I. International, no signature was found. By pointing out the fact that no one has signed on behalf of S.I. International including the detenu, it is contended that the detaining authority has not strictly complied with the statutory provisions as well as Manual. It is also contended that in the absence of required materials and subjective satisfaction, the order cannot be sustained. After going through the Manual details furnished in the bill of entry and of the fact that Eastern Maritime Private Limited is nothing but Customs House agent representing the petitioner and the signature of the said agent, we are of the view that the detaining authority has supplied the "relied on material of bill of entry" to the detenu and after satisfying himself on all aspects, the authority passed the order of detention. We do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. For the same reasons, we hold that the claim of the petitioner that seizure is a premature and wrong is liable to be rejected. All these aspects were considered by the detaining authority. `11. It is the claim of the petitioner that he studied upto 4th Standard and he does not know English. A perusal of booklet furnished to the detenu shows that copies of relied on documents were furnished to him. All these aspects were considered by the detaining authority. `11. It is the claim of the petitioner that he studied upto 4th Standard and he does not know English. A perusal of booklet furnished to the detenu shows that copies of relied on documents were furnished to him. There is no violation of the provisions of the Act or infringement of his right for making effective representation. 12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner by relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rivadeneyta Recardo Agustin v. Government of Delhi, reported in 1994 supreme Court Cases (Cri) 354, would contend that the detaining authority has not considered the relevant fact that the detenu was likely to be released or that such release was imminent. In this regard, it is relevant to note that at the time of passing of the detention order, the petitioner has filed a bail application on 2-7-2003 praying for enlarging him on bail. The respondent/complainant filed a counter opposing the bail petition. Considering the above materials, and no order has been passed in the bail petition, and taking note of the fact that the detenu was in the Central Prison, Chennai, the detaining authority arrived a conclusion that "there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail". In the grounds of detention which were considered by the Supreme Court shows that the detenu was in judicial custody and had not moved any bail application in the Court aafter June 9, 1992, but nothing prevented him from moving bail and possibility of his release on bail cannot be ruled out in the near future. With reference to the said factual statement, Their Lordships have held that, (para 8) "8. The above statement merely speaks of a "possibility" of the detenu's release in case he moves a bail petition. It neither says that such release was likely or that it was imminent. Evidently, the statement falls short of the requirement enunciated by this Court in Kamarunnissa (1991) 1 SCC 128 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 88?." In the case on hand, the detaining authority had considered the bail petition filed by the detenu, counter filed by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence opposing the bail application and in those circumstances, the detaining authority arrived at a conclusion that "there is likelihood of you being release on bail". The above statement of the detaining authority satisfied the requirement enunciated in Kamarunnissa's case [ (1991) 1 SCC 128 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 88]. 13. With reference to the claim that the officers are not proper officers as per the provisions of the Act and Manual. Section 2 (34) speaks about proper officer in the following manner: "Section 2(34)- The "proper officer" referred to in the various provisions of the Customs Act, who is to perform any function under the said Customs Act means the officer of customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or Collector of Customs as defined under clause (34) of S.2 of Customs Act, but it does not include the officers of police or any other officers enumerated under S.151." It is clear from the above definition that any officer of Customs who is assigned to perform the functions under the Act by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs is proper officer. Though the respondents have not filed counter affidavit pointing out proper officers in terms of Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on specific instruction reported that all officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligent are officers authorised to perform the functions under the Act. There is no reason to reject the above claim. 14. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any merit in the Habeas Corpus Petition; consequently the same is dismissed.