Customs Seizure Deemed Illegal; Goods Released Pending Trademark Dispute Resolution in Civil Suits.

The court held that the Customs Authorities lacked the legal basis to seize the imported goods under Bill of Lading EXSH2310608, as there was no court order supporting the trademark claim by respondent no. 8. The seizure was deemed "ex-facie illegal" due to non-compliance with the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the goods and allowed the petition, leaving all issues open for resolution in the ongoing civil suits. The petition was disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of seizing imported goods under a Bill of Lading.
2. Jurisdiction and authority of Customs Authorities in trademark disputes.
3. Applicability of the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007.

Summary:

1. Legality of Seizing Imported Goods:
The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the seizure of goods imported under Bill of Lading EXSH2310608 by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-V. They also requested a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the seized goods. The petitioners argued that the seizure was based on a sub-judice trademark dispute with respondent no. 8, which did not justify the detention of the goods.

2. Jurisdiction and Authority of Customs Authorities:
The petitioners contended that the Customs Authorities lacked jurisdiction to detain the goods solely due to an ongoing trademark dispute. They emphasized that no court order restrained them from using the trademark "INGCO." The petitioners referenced a Division Bench decision in NBU Bearings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, asserting that Customs Authorities cannot withhold goods without a court order validating the trademark claim.

3. Applicability of the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007:
The court examined the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, particularly Rules 6 and 7, which allow Customs Authorities to suspend clearance of goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights. The court noted that the Customs Authorities had not followed the required procedures under these rules, such as registering the complaint by respondent no. 8. Consequently, the court found the Customs' action to be "ex-facie illegal."

Conclusion:
The court concluded that without any orders favoring respondent no. 8 regarding the trademark, the Customs Authorities could not legally prevent the clearance of the goods. The court ordered the release of the goods under Bill of Lading EXSH2310608 and allowed the petition, keeping all contentions open in the pending civil suits. The petition was disposed of without costs.

---