2018 (9) TMI 198 - HC - Customs

Detention of goods - time period - In the present case, the petitioner claims that, time period fixed under sub-Section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 must commence from October 13, 2017. The view of the DRI and the Customs is otherwise - Held that - The date of commencement period of six months under Section 110(2) is disputed. In the present case, the parties are at variance on the date of seizure. The respondents have a particular view on the subject. They should, therefore, be afforded one opportunity to file affidavits to substantiate their point of view on the issue concerned. It would not be proper to grant an interim order directing the release of the goods. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is not in favour of the petitioner in granting an interim order of release of the goods, in the facts of the present case - Interim order as prayed for, therefore, is refused.

Issues:
Unauthorized detention of goods, entitlement to release of goods under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, dispute over the date of seizure, consideration of the definition of importer, compliance with Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Unauthorized Detention of Goods:
The petitioner alleges that the respondent is unlawfully detaining goods belonging to them, claiming the respondent took control over the goods on October 13, 2017, leading to a seizure. The petitioner argues that under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, they are entitled to the unconditional release of the goods after six months of seizure. Citing relevant case laws, the petitioner contends that the respondent's actions amount to seizure, while the respondent disputes this, stating the actual seizure occurred on January 12, 2018. The court notes the factual dispute and requires further evidence before making a decision.

Entitlement to Release of Goods under Section 110(2):
The petitioner asserts their entitlement to the release of goods under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the date of alleged seizure. The respondent contests this date, claiming a different date for the seizure. The court finds the discrepancy in the date of seizure requires clarification through affidavits from both parties before a decision can be made.

Dispute Over the Date of Seizure:
The conflicting claims regarding the date of seizure between the petitioner and the respondent necessitate a factual determination. The court emphasizes the need for the respondents to provide affidavits to support their position on the date of seizure before any judgment can be made.

Consideration of the Definition of Importer:
The petitioner argues that even if they are not the actual owner of the goods, the respondent can still take action against them as the ostensible owner under the definition of importer in the Customs Act, 1962. Citing a Kerala High Court judgment, the petitioner asserts that a "name lender" can import goods, supporting their position on the definition of importer.

Compliance with Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Customs authorities had requested the petitioner to warehouse the goods under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962, with specific conditions. The petitioner allegedly did not comply with these conditions, leading to further complications in the case. The court notes this non-compliance and the implications it may have on the proceedings.

In conclusion, the court refuses to grant an interim order for the release of the goods, emphasizing the need for affidavits from both parties to clarify the disputed issues, particularly the date of seizure. The court also directs the petitioner to amend the cause title to include the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) as a necessary party in the proceedings.

← Previous Next →