Dilip Kumar Seth, J. - (1.) In this case Imsa Shipping Agency is the owner of the containers, which were used by one Mr. Rajan Ghoshal (exporter), petitioner in Writ Petition No. 145 of 2002, in order to export certain goods. After the goods were cleared, the containers, hired by the exporter containing the goods, were loaded in the vessel M.V. Kota Bintang, which left Kolkata Port en route Singapore via Vizag. On the basis of some information in relation to attempt to export improperly, the said containers were off-loaded and were subjected to 100% examination, at Vizag Port, which was the subject matter of the challenge in the other Writ Petition No. 145 of 2002. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims that the containers should be released after destuff-ing the goods, which are subjected to investigation by the Customs Authority. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a Circular issued by the Government of India in relation to the handling of containers by the Customs Authority, particularly, when the containers are detained on account of certain investigation with regard to the goods contained in such containers. Relying thereon, he contends that the containers should be released. The shipping agent and the exporter were not made party to the proceedings. In course of hearing, it appeared that the presence of the exporter and the shipping agent is necessary and they are proper parties. Therefore, on oral prayer, leave was granted to add them as parties to the proceedings. These two respondents had appeared and contested the application. Since this matter was related to the validity of the investigation, subject matter of Writ Petition No. 145 of 2002, therefore, this was directed to be listed along with other matters and were heard one after the other.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the containers are not subject matter of investigation and as such it cannot be detained. The containers cannot be confiscated, even if there is violation of the Customs Act 1962 by the exporter. It is only the goods or the packages that could be confiscated. The containers were imported containers. As such in terms of the declaration, it cannot be detained beyond six months. The petitioner has nothing to do with the goods subjected to investigation. It was the shipping agent, who took the containers on hire.
(3.) Various objections were raised on behalf of the Customs Authority as well as the exporter and the shipping agent. The shipping agent contended that it has nothing to do with the matter since he had only shipped the goods. In any event, he points out that the goods belong to exporter or to the person to whom it is being sent i.e., the consignee. According to him, as soon as the goods are exported, the title in the goods has passed, therefore, this writ petition cannot be maintained without the consignee. 3.1 But, this proposition does not seem to be of any substance. No document has been produced to show that the titles to the goods have passed to someone else. In any event, if there is an attempt to export improperly, then the Customs Authority has every right to seize the goods and confiscate under Section 110 and Section 113 of the Customs Act through the process provided in Section 106, so long goods are within the Indian territorial water, no matter whether the title to the goods had passed to someone else or otherwise, if the goods are found to be smuggled goods within the meaning of Section 2(39) read with Section 113.;