DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The Court:- The petitioner complains that, the respondent is guilty of unauthorized detention of the goods belonging to the petitioner.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had imported goods under the subject Bill of Entry. He had complied with Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the event, the authorities had found anything wrong in the procedure adopted by the petitioner while importing goods, the authorities could have taken measures permitted to be taken under the Customs Act, 1962. He refers to a writing dated October 13, 2017 issued by the Customs authorities wherein the Customs authorities, had directed examination of the goods, in the presence of the Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). Such writing goes on to say that, the clearance of the goods would be withheld, subject to further orders from DRI. He submits that, such order tantamounts to the respondents taking dominion over the goods. The petitioner looses custody of the goods. Consequently, such a direction dated October 13, 2017 is to be construed as a seizure of the goods. That being so, a period in excess of six months has elapsed from the date of seizure being October 13, 2017. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner has become entitled to unconditional release of the goods. He relies upon (156) ELT 344 Cal ESI Ltd. v. Union of India in support of his contentions that, the respondent having received dominion control over the goods on October 13, 2017, the same is to be considered as to the date of commencement of the period prescribed under Section 110 (2) of the Act of 1962. He relies upon (337) ELT 321 (Mad.) M/s. A.S. Enterprises v. The Commissioner of Customs and submits that, every possible scenario under the Customs Act, 1962 with regard to the release of the goods have been taken into consideration therein.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner refers to the definition of importer given under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits that, even if, the respondent authorities releases the goods and the petitioner is found not to be the actual owner of the goods, then also, the respondent is not remediless. The respondents still continue to have the right to issue a show cause notice and initiate proceedings against the delinquent, in accordance with law. He submits that, an ostensible owner of the goods is to be considered as the importer of the goods within the definition of importer given in Section 2(26) of the Act of 1962. He refers to the Kerala High Court judgment dated July 21, 2011 (The Proprietor-Vs-The Commissioner of Customs) and submits that, the aspect of a "name lender" importing the goods has been taken into consideration and it has been held that, such name lender can be allowed to import goods.;