9911796707
TMI BlogCS (OS) No. 2982/2011 in the matter of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner) vs. Bharat Bhogilal Patel, Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai / Delhi before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi – Regarding.X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue Intelligence. Sir, Subject: CS (OS) No. 2982/2011 in the matter of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner) vs. Bharat Bhogilal Patel, Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai / Delhi before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi Regarding. Shri Bharat Bhogilal Patel has Unique Permanent Registration Number (UPRN) A0241 INBOM4PR and A0242INBOM4PR with Commissioner of Customs (Import), Air Cargo Complex for the following two patents in terms of Rule 4 of the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007: (a) No. 188787 dated 21.09.1998 for 'an improved laser marking and engraving machine' and (b) No. 189027 dated 21.09.1998 for 'process for manufacturing engraved design ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely implementing agencies to enforce the orders, if passed by the Court in favour of the party pertaining to above mentioned three subjects and the custom department would be entitled to enforce the same. 3.2 The Court ruled that as far as the present case is concerned, prima facie it appears that the defendants 2 and 3 (Customs Mumbai Delhi) cannot restrict clearance of the plaintiff's consignments on the basis of alleged patent obtained or on the complaint made by defendant No.1 (Bhogilal Patel). 4. In this connection, it may be noted that the Central Government has been empowered under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 to issue notifications for prohibiting either absolutely or subject to such conditions as ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. The conditions and procedure based on which the prohibition would operate is listed in the IPR Rules. 4.3 The above legal position, which is unambiguous and explicit, should alone suffice to conclude that the Customs authority is empowered to enforce prohibition of imported goods that contravene the specified provisions of the Patent Act, 1970. In fact, IPR Rules empower Customs authority to take action on own initiative (ex officio action), even without prior recordation of Rights by the Right holder. 4.4 Hence, the interpretation that Customs authority is not empowered to take action to prohibit import of goods infringing the patent Act does not appear to be proper and correct in law. The Hon ble High Court has reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 of Customs Act, 1962 and Notification 51/201 Customs (N.T). Further, a Circular cannot nullify provisions of an Act and Notification issued under the Act. Circulars are issued to clarify the legal provisions and to bring in uniformity in implementation. They are not intended to alter the scope or meaning of the existing statutory provisions. 5. In view of the foregoing, the order dated 30 th November, 2011 of High Court of Delhi, in the matter of CS (OS) No. 2982/2011 L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. does not appear to be proper in law. Since, the aforesaid order of the Hon ble Delhi High Court would have wider ramifications on the interpretation of Para 4 of Circular 41/2007 dated 29 th October, 2007, the jurisdictional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
