2001 (9) TMI 114 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved: Petition seeking direction to return and/or re-export unclaimed imported goods, ownership rights of goods, alleged conspiracy to under-value goods, detention of goods by authorities.

In the present case, a foreign-based company engaged in the trade of electronics goods filed a petition seeking the return or re-export of goods imported from Hong Kong that were unclaimed by the buyers in India. The petitioners, as owners of the goods supplied on consignment basis, asserted their entitlement to the goods since the buyers refused to accept and clear them (Para 2).

The legal position regarding unclaimed goods was cited, referencing the case of Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar, where it was established that if the bill of entry is not filed by the importer and the goods are abandoned, the exporter retains ownership rights and can seek re-export or return of the goods (Para 3).

The respondents did not contest that the goods were not cleared by the importer, acknowledging that ownership rested with the exporter. However, they alleged a conspiracy to under-value goods to evade import duties, citing discrepancies in earlier consignments. Despite ongoing proceedings related to previous consignments, the court focused on the present case where the importers had abandoned the goods, emphasizing the lack of justification for detaining the goods (Para 4-5).

Referring to a similar case precedent, the court held that mere suspicion of under-valuation does not warrant withholding the consignment. The court emphasized that the present consignment, where importers had not claimed any rights or filed necessary documents, should not be linked to previous alleged under-valuation cases. Following the precedent, the court allowed the petitioners to re-export the goods (Para 6).

Consequently, the court made the rule absolute in favor of the petitioners, granting permission for re-export of the goods as requested in the petition, with a stay on the order's operation for six weeks and no costs imposed. The parties were instructed to act on the authenticated copy of the order (Para 7-9).