TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Act 1962, the Customs authority cannot retain the goods beyond a period of 60 days. The Customs authorities are not concerned with the civil claims which the petitioner may have against the foreign exporter. As far as the first respondent is concerned, they have no difficulty in releasing the goods to the second respondent, as the second respondent has complied with all the formalities. The petitioner probably has been given a short shrift by the foreign exporter. It is quite possible that the petitioner has been misled by the foreign exporter. But then, that cannot be a ground for directing the first respondent to retain the goods. The first respondent cannot retain the goods, till the issue is decided by the civil Court. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t if the petitioner is unable to come forward, the first respondent would take action in the matter without further notice to the petitioner. Challenging the same, this writ petition came to be filed. 3. The writ petitioner had originally not impleaded the second respondent herein. The petitioner was therefore directed to implead the second respondent. A learned Judge of this Court had granted an interim order of status quo. 4. To vacate the same, a petition had been filed by the second respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the goods are perishable items and that therefore he wanted that the matter may be taken up. Thereupon, the matter was taken up and I heard the learned counsel on either ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he levy of duty, the levy of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and for the levy of penalty for improper import. Therefore, the question as to the rights of the original importer must also be examined. 7. The stand of the petitioner is that he has title to the goods involved in the impugned transaction. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 8. I carefully considered the rival contentions. 9. Before considering the issue from a legal perspective, I posed a question to the petitioner as to whether the petitioner had made any payment to the foreign exporter. The petitioner's counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s concerned, they have no difficulty in releasing the goods to the second respondent, as the second respondent has complied with all the formalities. 11. I therefore sustain the contentions raised made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner probably has been given a short shrift by the foreign exporter. It is quite possible that the petitioner has been misled by the foreign exporter. But then, that cannot be a ground for directing the first respondent to retain the goods. The first respondent cannot retain the goods, till the issue is decided by the civil Court. The petitioner cannot have any claim against the respondents. It is seen that there was transaction only between the petitioner and the foreign expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
