2017 (9) TMI 1643 - HC - Customs

Court Orders Evaluation of Petitioner's Goods Release Request, Imposes Conditions

M/s. Kanpur Trading Co., Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Gr. 7H) And The Joint/Addl. Commissioner of Customs (Gr. 7H),

The court directed the respondents to evaluate the petitioner's representation for the provisional release of goods not falling under prohibited ... Provisional release of goods - prohibited goods - Section 110A of the Customs Act - Held that: - since the bill of entry was filed as early as on 06.06.2017 and as of now, the examination has been done by the authorities, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for provisional release of goods, which are not prohibited and where there are no other issues including IPR issues - petition disposed off. Issues:1. Direction sought for provisional release of goods detained under Customs Act.2. Detention of goods due to prohibited items and trademark violations.3. Consideration for provisional release based on representation by petitioner.4. Lack of specific written instructions from respondents' counsel.Analysis:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the provisional release of goods detained by the respondents under the Customs Act, specifically covered by Bill of Entry No.9988693 dated 06.06.2017. The goods were detained by the authorities on the grounds of containing prohibited items and items violating registered trademarks. The petitioner submitted representations requesting the release of goods not falling under the prohibited category or trademark violations, under Section 110A of the Act. Reminders were also sent by the petitioner to follow up on the representation submitted.The counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the goods have been sorted out, with prohibited or trademark violation items being detained, while the rest were kept separately for provisional release consideration. Due to the pending writ petition, no final decision had been made by the authorities regarding the release of goods. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents did not have specific written instructions regarding the matter at hand. However, considering the timeline since the bill of entry was filed and the completion of examination by the authorities, the court directed the respondents to evaluate the petitioner's representation for the provisional release of goods not falling under the prohibited category or facing other issues like intellectual property rights violations.The court allowed the respondents to impose necessary conditions for the provisional release of goods, as long as they were not prohibited, restricted, or involved in any other issues. The direction provided by the court required compliance from the respondents within 15 days from the date of receiving a copy of the order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with no costs imposed on either party.