2019 (2) TMI 449 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - power of Inspector SIIB to pass seizure order - Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 - confiscation - Held that - Issue notice to respondent no. 2 - List after one month for admission/final disposal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Inspector SIIB to pass seizure order under Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007.
2. Allegation of predetermined mindset in passing the seizure order without independent consideration.
3. Stay on the operation and effect of the impugned seizure memo dated 24.10.2018 and release of seized goods upon furnishing a bond and security.

Analysis:

1. The High Court addressed the issue of jurisdiction concerning the seizure order passed by the Inspector Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB). The Court noted that under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, only the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or the Assistant Commissioner of Customs are authorized to issue seizure orders. The petitioner argued that the Inspector SIIB lacked the authority to pass the seizure order, raising a crucial question of jurisdictional competence.

2. Another significant issue raised was the allegation of a predetermined mindset in passing the seizure order. The petitioner contended that the order was made with a preconceived notion of confiscation, allegedly on the directive of a superior authority rather than an independent assessment by the seizing authority. This challenge highlighted the importance of fair and unbiased decision-making processes in matters of confiscation and enforcement actions.

3. The Court granted time for the respondent to file a counter affidavit and allowed the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit within the specified timelines. Additionally, the Court issued notice to respondent no.2 and scheduled the case for admission/final disposal after one month. Notably, the Court ordered a stay on the operation and effect of the impugned seizure memo dated 24.10.2018. Furthermore, the Court directed the release of the seized goods upon the petitioner furnishing a bond equivalent to the value of the goods and providing security in the form of a bank guarantee amounting to 25% of the said value. This interim measure aimed to balance the interests of the parties pending the final resolution of the case.