Category: Constitutional Law

  • β€œIntellectual Property Laws are protected under Indian Customs Border Control Laws”

    β€œIntellectual Property Laws are protected under Indian Customs Border Control Laws”

    Logo of Aadrikaa Law Offices featuring a gold emblem with scales, accompanied by the text 'Aadrikaa Law Offices (ALO) Your Own Law Office' on a dark red background.

    Date: 04.02.2026

    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha
    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

    ​​ ​​  β€‹  β€‹ ​​ ​

    This short Article provides an overview of the Indian Customs’ measures for protecting Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) at the border. ​ It outlines the procedures, laws, and rules for IPR registration, enforcement, interdiction, determination, and disposal of infringing goods. ​

    Types of IPRs Protected by Customs ​

    • Trademarks Act, 1999 ​
    • Patents Act, 1970 ​
    • Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 ​
    • Copyright Act, 1957 ​
    • Designs Act, 2000 ​
    • Legal Basis: Section 11 of the Customs Act empowers the Central Government to prohibit import/export of goods violating IPRs. ​
    • Notification: Notification No. ​ 51/2010-Cus. (NT) prohibits the import of goods infringing IPRs. ​
    • Conditions: Prohibition is subject to the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 enforced through M.F. (D.R.) Notification No. 47/2007-Cus. (N.T.) dated 8th May, 2007 as amended.

    (a) “goods infringing intellectual property rights” means any goods which are made, reproduced, put into circulation or otherwise used in breach of the intellectual property laws in India or outside India and without the consent of the right holder or a person duly authorized to do so by the right holder;

    (b) “intellectual property” means a copyright as defined in the Copyright Act, 1957, trade mark as defined in the Trade Marks Act,1999, [* * * *] design as defined in the Designs Act, 2000 and geographical indications as defined in the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999;

    (c) “Intellectual property law” means the Copyright Act, 1957, the Trade Marks Act,1999, [* * * *] the Designs Act, 2000 or the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999;

    (d) “right holder” means a natural person or a legal entity, which according to the laws in force is to be regarded as the owner of protected intellectual property right, its successors in title, or its duly authorized exclusive licensee as well as an individual, a corporation or an association authorized by any of the aforesaid persons to protect its rights.

    • Online Application: Submit applications at https://ipr.icegate.gov.in/IPR/homePage
    • Required Documents:
      • Registration certificate or proof of ownership. ​
      • Demand draft details/Online Payment through ICEGATE Portal/Payment Proof of INR 2000.00 only
      • Power of Attorney in the name of the Right Holder or the Authorized representative. ​
      • Statement of exclusivity. ​
      • Digital images of genuine and infringing goods. ​
      • IEC code. ​
      • Description of geographical indications (if applicable). ​

    Indemnity Bond

    • Protects Customs authorities from liability for detaining goods suspected of infringement. ​

    General Bond vs. Centralized Bond

    • General Bond: Requires consignment-specific bonds for each interdiction. ​
    • Centralized Bond: A running bond applicable across India, with a single Bond Registration Number (BRN) for all rights registered by the rights holder. ​

    Detention of Suspected Infringing Goods ​

    • Notification: Customs informs the importer and rights holder of the detention. ​
    • Maximum Detention Period for deciding the matter: 10 working days for regular goods; 3 working days for perishable goods. (Rule 7)
    • (1) Where upon determination by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, it is found that the goods detained or seized have infringed intellectual property rights, and have been confiscated under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and no legal proceedings are pending in relation to such determination, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, shall, destroy the goods under official supervision or dispose them outside the normal channels of commerce after obtaining ‘no objection’ or concurrence of the right holder or his authorized representative :
    • Provided that if the right holder or his authorized representative does not oppose or react to the mode of disposal as proposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, within twenty working days after having been informed, or within such extended period as may have been granted by the Commissioner at the request of the right holder, not exceeding another twenty working days, he shall be deemed to have concurred with the mode of disposal as proposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be :
    • Provided further that the costs toward destruction, demurrage and detention charges incurred till the time of destruction or disposal, as the case may be, shall be borne by the right holder.
    • (2) There shall not be allowed the re-exportation of the goods infringing intellectual property rights in an unaltered state.
    • (3) The Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, may on his own, or at the request of the right holder, retain samples of goods infringing intellectual property rights prior to their destruction or disposal and provide the same to the right holder or importer if such samples are needed as evidence in pending or future litigation.
    • Goods of a non-commercial nature contained in personal baggage or sent in small consignments intended for personal use of the importer are not subject to the above Rules.
    • Customs can suspend clearance of goods on its own initiative if there is prima facie evidence of infringement. Or at the written request of the Rights holder, as the case maybe.
    • Rights holder must comply with recordable requirements within 5 days. ​
    • Show Cause Notice: Issued to the importer and shared with the rights holder. ​
    • Adjudication: Includes importer’s reply and personal hearing. ​
    • Confiscation: If goods are found infringing, they are confiscated. ​
    • Process: Confiscated goods are destroyed or disposed of outside normal commerce channels. ​
    • Rights Holder’s Consent: Required for destruction/disposal. ​
    • Samples: Provided to the rights holder upon request. ​

    Informing Customs of Infringing Consignments ​

    • Rights holders can notify Customs via email, fax, or post at the relevant Customs Station or Risk Management Division. ​

    This Short Article serves as a comprehensive guide for rights holders, Customs officers, importers, and other stakeholders involved in IPR enforcement at Indian borders. ​

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Handy Download:

  • Judicial Review of Delegated Legislation under the Customs Act and Allied Rules vis a vis The Constitutional framework

    Judicial Review of Delegated Legislation under the Customs Act and Allied Rules vis a vis The Constitutional framework

    Date: 29.01.2026

    ​​ ​​  β€‹  β€‹ ​​ ​

    Summary

    This Article examines the constitutional discipline of delegated legislation in the context of customs law. It argues that while modern governance requires administrative agility, the legitimacy of subordinate legislation depends on fidelity to legislative policy, legality under the Constitution, and adherence to judicially crafted standards of review. The study constructs a unified framework for assessing customs notifications, rules, regulations, and circulars through four constitutional lenses: legislative policy, rights‑compatibility, standards of review, and institutional accountability.

    The first chapter situates delegated legislation within India’s constitutional architecture and explains its growing centrality to customs administration. The second chapter surveys classical and Indian scholarshipβ€”Dicey, Wade & Forsyth, De Smith, Seervai, M.P. Jain, and I.P. Masseyβ€”together with doctrinal commentary on leading cases, to isolate the core standards of control. The third chapter elaborates the legal frameworkβ€”Articles 13, 245–246, 265; Sections 25 and 156–159 of the Customs Act; and allied statutesβ€”demonstrating that subordinate instruments are both enabled and constrained by constitutional and statutory design. The fourth chapter applies these standards to key judgments, presenting a comparative analysis that confirms a consistent judicial insistence on statutory fidelity, reasonableness, and competent authority. The fifth chapter consolidates findings and proposes reforms: guidance clauses in enabling provisions, pre‑notification consultation, statements of reasons and impact, stronger parliamentary scrutiny, and structured proportionality for burdensome measures.

    The dissertation concludes that delegated legislation in customs can achieve both legality and effectiveness when drafted with clear statutory authority, supported by reasons, and implemented with transparency and proportionality. The proposed reforms align with the National Logistics Policy’s goals of predictability and facilitation without compromising constitutional discipline.

    This Article also includes a short Non-Doctrinal Data survey done in an online mode using Google Form and the responses were received from across India. It has not been published here due to the Non-Disclosure agreed between the Author and the Participants.

    Abstract

    This Article evaluates the constitutional limits of delegated legislation under the Customs Act, 1962 and allied rules. It develops an integrated framework for judicial review based on Articles 13, 245–246, and 265 of the Constitution and the ultra vires, arbitrariness, proportionality, and legitimate‑expectation doctrines. Drawing on classical administrative‑law theory and Indian constitutional scholarship, the study maps enabling provisions (Sections 25, 156–159) and interfaces with allied statutes. A comparative analysis of landmark Supreme Court decisionsβ€”ranging from In re Delhi Laws Act (1951) to Canon India (2021) and recent casesβ€”shows a consistent insistence on legislative policy supremacy, statutory fidelity, and competent authority.

    The dissertation also focuses on specific questions raised in the Empirical Data Survey which glaringly points out to the reality of β€œArbitrariness” in Executive orders being pronounced by Competent Authorities in the Customs Department.

    The participants were located across India and participated in an online survey through Google Form. The Data is verifiable with the details of the participants mentioned in the Empirical survey report. The Empirical Data survey report is placed as Annexure-A at the end of this research Paper.

    The dissertation proposes reforms in legislative drafting, administrative process, and judicial oversight to enhance transparency, accountability, and rights‑compatibility in customs rule‑making.

    List of Cases and Statutes

    β€’ In re Delhi Laws Act, 1951 SCR 747

    β€’ Harishankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1954 SCR 380

    β€’ Raj Narain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, 1954 SCR 1279

    β€’ Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 1 SCC 137

    β€’ Kunj Behari Lal Butail v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2000) 3 SCC 40

    β€’ Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2021 (376) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)

    β€’ Constitution of India: Articles 13, 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 245–246, 265 β€’ Customs Act, 1962: Sections 25, 156–159; General Clauses Act, 1897: Sections 21, 23, 24

    Handy Download: