2009 (3) TMI 586 - HC - Customs

Appeal - aggrieved person - M/s. Shiva Enterprises, the respondent No. 4, is the importer and the petitioner was a purchaser who had subsequently sold it to M/s. Shyam Traders - M/s. Shyam Traders by a declaration dated 17th February, 2009 had declared that they have no objection to take and/or claim release of 191 bundles of the goods which have been seized by the Customs Authorities at Gorakhpur under Seizure Case No. 10/09 dated 25-1-2009, by M/s. Pashupati Enterprises, Kolkata, that is, the petitioner - Held that - the petitioner not a party aggrieved - neither the importer nor the person from whom the goods have been seized - no merit in the writ petition - petition dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction sought for licit clearance of goods under Bills of Entry.
2. Seizure of goods by Customs Authorities.
3. Ownership and sale of goods by petitioner.
4. Declaration by M/s. Shyam Traders.
5. Dismissal of writ petition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a direction for licit clearance of goods under Bills of Entry from the Commissioner of Customs and Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The goods were initially imported by M/s. Shiva Enterprises and later purchased by the petitioner, who then sold them to M/s. Shyam Traders. The Customs Authorities at Gorakhpur seized the goods due to misdeclaration, leading to a summon for inquiry under the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Following the seizure, M/s. Shyam Traders declared no objection to the release of the seized goods, which belonged to the petitioner. The petitioner, being the owner of the goods, requested appropriate orders based on this declaration. However, the Court noted that M/s. Shiva Enterprises was the importer, and M/s. Shyam Traders, not being an aggrieved party, was not directly involved in the seizure. As the petitioner was neither the importer nor the party from whom the goods were seized, the Court found no merit in the writ petition.

3. The Court emphasized that since M/s. Shyam Traders was not the importer or the party from whom the goods were seized, the petitioner's claim lacked substance. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with no costs imposed on either party. The Court directed the provision of an urgent certified copy of the order to the concerned parties upon application.

This judgment highlights the importance of legal ownership and standing in cases involving the seizure and clearance of goods by Customs Authorities. It underscores the significance of direct involvement and aggrieved status in seeking legal remedies, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the writ petition in this particular case.