Disposed

Eiemens Imports & Exports v. Union of India and Others

Kerala HC6 Feb 2009WP(C)/854/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the fourth respondent to pass an adjudication order within five months. It granted provisional clearance of non-detenainable goods subject to payment of admitted duty and bank guarantee, while allowing continued detention of wrist watches alleged to bear false trade marks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted provisional clearance of eligible goods subject to duty payment and bank guarantee; wrist watches detained pending separate trademark proceedings; adjudication to be completed withi

Eiemens Imports & Exports Vs Union of India and Others — Customs and Excise | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 854 of 2009(B) ------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

EIEMENS IMPORTS & EXPORTS, XXII/20 M, POONTHATH HOUSE, PALAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD - 680 506 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.K.T.RAFEEK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT COMMISSIONERATE, CR BUILDINGS, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE -

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AIR CARGO COMPLEX, CALICUT AIRPORT (KARIPUR) - 673 647.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, CALICUT REGIONAL UNIT, 16/1043-A,

¶16

THYAG, FRANCIS ROAD, CHALAPPURAM P.O., CALICUT - 673 022.

¶17

ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCISE. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,C.B. EXCISE

¶18

SRI. THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 854/2009.

¶21

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT. 19-11-2008. EXT.P2 RESTRAINT ORDER DT. 11-12-2008. EXT.P3 DECISION REPORTED IN 2001 (130) ELT 520 (TRI. CHENNAI)

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT. R4(a) NOTIFICATION DT. 7-3-2007.

[TRUE COPY]

P.S TO JUDGE.

S. Siri Jagan, J.

W. P (C) No. 854 of 2009

¶28

Dated this, the 6^th February, 2009.

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P2 order of the 4^th respondent, whereby the petitioner has been restrained from clearing/parting with or otherwise dealing with the goods included under Bill of Entry No. 359/08 dated 17-11-2008, which are presently stored in the warehouse of the Kerala State Industrial Enterprises. Admittedly, this Court cannot take a final decision regarding the validity of the action of the 4^th respondent in the matter, since that can be done only after finally the 4^th respondent completes the adjudication proceedings which have been initiated and passes an adjudication order against which the petitioner, if aggrieved, can file an appeal.

¶31

Presently, the petitioner raises a grievance that the petitioner is not being permitted even to clear the goods provisionally. In the above circumstances, I directed counsel for the 4^th respondent to ascertain from the 4^th respondent as to within what time the adjudication proceedings can be completed and in the meanwhile what interim orders can be passed in the matter of provisional clearance of the goods. Counsel for the 4^th respondent today submitted before me that they would require five months' time to complete the adjudication proceedings . It is further submitted before me that in respect of most of the goods, the same can be allowed to be provisionally cleared, subject to the adjudication order, provided the petitioner pays the admitted duty and furnishes bank guarantee for the probable differential duty. In respect of some of wrist watches included in the consignment in question, counsel submits that the 4^th respondent may not be in a position to release those goods since there is an allegation that those watches bear false trade marks in respect of which separate proceedings have been initiated and in the very

¶32

W.P.C. No. 854/2009. -: 2 :-

¶33

nature of the proceedings , the watches cannot be released at present. 3. I have heard both sides in respect of the orders to be passed in this writ petition pending the adjudication proceedings . After hearing, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

¶34

The adjudication order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending passing of final adjudication order, competent among the respondents shall allow the petitioner to provisionally clear those goods, the detention of which is not required in the nature of the adjudication proceedings involved, on the petitioner paying the admitted duty and furnishing bank guarantee for the probable differential duty as demanded by the 4^th respondent. The wrist watches detaining of which pending adjudication proceedings are essential shall be detained by the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent shall inform the petitioner as to the amounts payable by the petitioner and for which the petitioner is to provide bank guarantee within one week from today. Immediately on payment of the admitted duty and furnishing of the bank guarantee for the amounts as directed by the 4^th respondent , those of the goods which can be released shall be released immediately.

¶35

S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶36

Tds/

Eiemens Imports & Exports v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eiemens Imports & Exports v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K.Sasi Vs State of Kerala

T. Nirmala Vs Commissioner, Guruvayur Devaswom

M.a.Kunju Mohammed Vs K.S.R.T.C.

A.Sumesh Kumar Vs Repco Bank (Govt. of India Enterprise)

Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Fci Technology Services Ltd. Vs Union of India and 4 Others