IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.472 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.1.2010 M/s PMS Diesel, Phagwara -----Petitioner Vs. Union of India and another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. HPS Ghuman, Advocate for the respondents. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. On 13.1.2010, following order was passed:- “This petition seeks a direction for return of goods detained by respondent No.2 at Ludhiana. The goods in question were sought to be exported for which shipping bills dated 26.9.2009 were filed with respondent No.2. On examination, it was found that some of the goods had the brand “Usha”. The petitioner CWP No.472 of 2010 (O&M) claimed that there was no valid reason for detaining the goods. However, in view of suit filed by M/s Usha International Limited in Delhi High Court, in which the petitioner as well as the customs department received summons, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 29.12.2009 informed the petitioner that the goods could not be released as the matter was sub-judice. The petitioner made an application to withdraw the consignment to avoid demurrage charges but that was also not allowed. The grievance put forward in the petition is that the issue in the suit pending in Delhi High Court was only with regard to violation of trade mark rights which did not justify detention of the goods by the customs authorities. It has been further submitted that it is not a case where power of seizure or detention under the Customs Act, 1944 has been exercised and in such a situation, detention of goods is not justified. Notice of motion to respondent No.2. Mr. HPS Ghuman, Advocate, present in Court, accepts notice and seeks time to take instructions. List again on 21.1.2010.” 2 CWP No.472 of 2010 (O&M) 2. In the reply filed, facts noticed above have not been disputed. Accordingly, we direct that the goods which have been detained by respondent No.2, be returned to the petitioner except those bearing brand of ‘Usha’ which may be kept in the premises of the petitioner under the seal of respondent No.2 so that the same can be dealt with in accordance with the direction of the Delhi High Court in a pending suit. Respondent No.2 will be at liberty to impose such conditions as may be considered appropriate with regard to the said goods. 3. The petition is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 21, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3