2017 (7) TMI 833 - HC - Customs

Issuance of detention certificate - Detention of goods - storage of goods u/s 49 of CA - Held that - the suspension of imported goods was on account of an application being made by the Right Holder under Rule 5 of the IPR Rules. Though such an application was filed and the same was registered under due compliance of the conditions under Rule 5(a) and (b) of IPR Rules, the Right Holder did not participate in the proceedings. Therefore, the second respondent had stated that the suspension of the imported goods is lifted in terms of Rule 7(3) of the IPR Rules. In such circumstances, the petitioner, for not fault committed by them, cannot be put to prejudice - there will be a direction to the second respondent to issue necessary Detention Certificate stating the reasons for which Cargo was detained and as to when such detention was cleared - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Issuance of a writ of mandamus for detention certificate under Regulation 6(1) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation 2009.
2. Detention of goods due to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) claim.
3. Suspension of clearance and responsibility for demurrage/detention charges.
4. Right Holder's non-participation in proceedings and lifting of suspension.
5. Responsibility of Right Holder for detention/demurrage charges.
6. Entitlement of petitioner to Detention Certificate.
7. Direction for issuance of Detention Certificate by the second respondent.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for a detention certificate under Regulation 6(1) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation 2009 concerning goods imported from Malaysia. The goods were detained at Chennai Port due to an IPR claim by M/s.Radha Decors, leading to suspension of clearance and a directive for storage under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The suspension was lifted as the Right Holder did not participate in the proceedings, prompting the petitioner to request a Detention Certificate for further clearance. The Senior Intelligence Officer stated that the Right Holder's non-participation shifted the liability of demurrage and detention charges to them.

3. The court acknowledged that the Right Holder's failure to join the proceedings resulted in the suspension being lifted. The second respondent accepted the Right Holder's liability for charges, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner should be issued a Detention Certificate for the goods detained due to the IPR claim.

4. Consequently, the court directed the second respondent to issue the necessary Detention Certificate, detailing the reasons for detention and clearance, within three weeks. This directive aimed to protect the petitioner from bearing the charges while allowing the Department to recover them from the Right Holder as per the Rules.

5. The judgment disposed of the writ petition without costs, emphasizing the issuance of the Detention Certificate and ensuring compliance within the stipulated timeframe. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed, concluding the legal proceedings on the matter.