2020 (9) TMI 138 - HC - Customs

Retention of goods after arriving at Port - Dispute in title of goods - the petitioner herein lodged their contentions and contended that the goods should not be released to the second respondent herein - section 49 of CA - HELD THAT - The second respondent herein was the original importer. It is true that certain documents had been enclosed by the petitioner in the typed set of papers. It is noted that all the original documents are only with the second respondent. The learned Standing counsel submitted that as per Section 49 of the Customs Act 1962 the Customs authority cannot retain the goods beyond a period of 60 days. The Customs authorities are not concerned with the civil claims which the petitioner may have against the foreign exporter. As far as the first respondent is concerned they have no difficulty in releasing the goods to the second respondent as the second respondent has complied with all the formalities. The petitioner probably has been given a short shrift by the foreign exporter. It is quite possible that the petitioner has been misled by the foreign exporter. But then that cannot be a ground for directing the first respondent to retain the goods. The first respondent cannot retain the goods till the issue is decided by the civil Court. The petitioner cannot have any claim against the respondents. It is seen that there was transaction only between the petitioner and the foreign exporter. The foreign exporter is not before this Court. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner has the right to claim ownership of the goods imported by the second respondent.
2. Whether the procedure laid down in Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 was followed in this case.
3. Whether the first respondent is justified in releasing the goods to the second respondent.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitioner claimed that the goods arrived in India after being exported by a Ghanaian company to the second respondent, with the title transferred to the petitioner during transit. The petitioner contended that the goods should not be released to the second respondent, challenging the first respondent's decision. The petitioner argued that the ownership issue should be examined, citing a previous decision emphasizing the importance of determining the rights of the original importer in such cases.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the statutory procedure under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the amendment of documents, was not followed. The petitioner highlighted the significance of following this procedure, which allows for amendments to documents presented in the customs house under certain conditions. The petitioner emphasized the need for adherence to legal procedures in cases involving the import and clearance of goods.

3. After hearing arguments from both sides, the judge considered whether the petitioner had made any payments to the foreign exporter or the second respondent. The judge noted that the original documents were only with the second respondent, who was the original importer according to the affidavit filed in support of the petition. The judge upheld the contentions of the respondents, stating that the Customs authorities were not concerned with the petitioner's civil claims against the foreign exporter. The judge emphasized that the goods were perishable and that retaining them would only lead to loss without serving any useful purpose. Consequently, the judge dismissed the writ petition, sustaining the order to release the goods to the second respondent.