2018 (7) TMI 112 - HC - Customs

Release of consignment - The sum and substance of the counter affidavit being that the petitioner had imported Adult Toys , which are banned items, and other items, which are being imported, attracts IPR violation and they are all counterfeit items and the total value of the offending goods exceeds ₹ 1 crore and therefore, the petitioner is liable for arrest and further investigation is in process - Held that - It is seen that the request for re-export have not been given in writing to take action, therefore, the prayer for re-export cannot be considered on a oral request - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition to direct the respondent to release the consignment.
2. Import of banned items and IPR violation.
3. Request for re-export of goods.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking direction to the respondent to consider his representation dated 14-12-2017 for the release of the consignment mentioned in the Bill of Entry dated 5-12-2017. The respondent, in a detailed counter affidavit, explained that the consignment could not be released due to the import of banned 'Adult Toys' and other counterfeit items, which violated intellectual property rights (IPR) with a total value exceeding ?1 crore. Consequently, the petitioner was informed of potential arrest pending further investigation.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the supplier had mistakenly sent the goods intended for a customer in Bangkok to the petitioner and requested re-export of the cargo. However, this request was made after the goods had already been examined on 11-12-2017, and no written request for re-export was submitted. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to file an application before the respondent for permission to re-export. The respondent was directed to consider such an application within two weeks of receipt, based on merit and in accordance with the law.

3. In conclusion, the High Court of Madras dismissed the writ petition but allowed the petitioner to seek permission for re-export through a formal application. The judgment emphasized the importance of following proper procedures and documentation in such cases, highlighting the need for written requests to be considered valid for further actions.