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 ..... 2/2011 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 articles on metals and non-metals'; 2. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vide petition CS (OS) N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee 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 may be specified in the notification, the import or export of goods of any specified description. Section 11(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 details the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onclude 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 relied on the following provision of Circular No. 41/2007-Customs dated 29th October, 2007, in support of the judgement pronounced: "It is pertinent to mention that while the mandatory obligations under Articles 51 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. They are not intended to alter the scope or meaning of the existing statutory provisions. 5. In view of the foregoing, the order dated 30th 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 29th October, 2007, the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner has been directed to defend the case by filing appropriate reply / review application against the order. 6. The undersigned is directed to reiterate to the field formations the policy intent as reflected in Section 11 (2) (n) of the Customs act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
