JUNAID INTERIOR DESIGN, PROPRIETARY FIRM REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR ANSAR KHAN Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.B.Satish Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.S.Seethalakshmi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. Though fourth respondent has been served and their name is printed in the cause list, none appears for them.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction upon the third respondent, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, IPR Cell, Chennai, to cause assessment and release the goods covered under Bill of Entry No.6885665, dated 27.09.2016 and Bill of Entry No.7285334, dated 31.10.2016. It may not be necessary for this Court to make elaborate exercise as to whether there was a justification for detention of consignment on an objection given by the fourth respondent on account of certain subsequent developments.

(3.) It appears that though the fourth respondent had given an objection alleging that there is an infringement of his intellectual property rights, as he had obtained a patent for the same product, the fourth respondent did not join the proceedings initiated in this regard by the Customs Department. Therefore, the third respondent informed the fourth respondent, who is proprietor of M/s.Radha Decors, that since he has not participated in the proceedings, they are constrained to lift the suspension of clearance in respect of the consignment imported by the petitioner vide Bill of Entry No.7285334, dated 31.10.2016. This Bill of Entry is one of the Bill of Entries which is subject matter of the writ petition. Therefore, so far as this Bill of Entry No.7285334, dated 31.10.2016, the third respondent has to release the same after assessment.