Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
Bashco Trading Company has withdrawn the appeal it had filed against a Supreme Court ruling which dismissed its motion to recover loss of profit from the Government arising from the Revenue Protection Division's (RPD) seizure of 7,346 pairs of shoes.
The company which was formerly known as Costco Trading Co. had taken the matter to the Supreme Court after RPD officers detained two containers of shoes in January 1999 shortly after they arrived in the island from Canada. Notices of seizure were served on Bashco on February 10, 1999.
The Commissioner of Customs who was named as the respondent contended that the shoes were seized because they were counterfeit goods.
Lawyers from the Attorney-General's Department argued in the Judicial Review Court that the customs officers found shoes in one container bearing brand names of 'Nike' and 'Adidas'. Customs officers acting on information also found shoes with brand names 'Nike', 'Adidas' and 'Caterpillar' in the other container. The goods did not contain any words or marks indicating the country of manufacture and origin.
Bashco had sought orders to compel the Commissioner of Customs and/or Officers of the Revenue Protection Division to return the property as set out in the Notice of Seizure. The applicant also sought an injunction to restrain the commissioner from selling, destroying or disposing of the goods.
It was contended that the seizure was without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction and also that the seizure was not in compliance with the Merchandise Marks Act which required search warrants from a Justice of the Peace.
Senior Puisne Judge Justice Lloyd Ellis (now retired) heard the motion and ruled that the Commissioner of Customs was not in breach of the Merchandise Marks Act.
The judge in ruling in favour of the respondent said that section 14 (1) of the Merchandise Marks Act made it abundantly clear 'that it is the goods which bear a trade mark which must have the country of manufacture marked thereon.'
The judge said it was not the bill of lading or other documents which should bear the place of origin or manufacture as contended by Bashco's lawyers.
Lawyers from the Attorney-General's Department had filed a motion to have the appeal dismissed for want of prosecution because Bashco had not taken steps to settle the record of appeal. When the motion came for hearing last week Monday, attorney-at-law, Priya Levers, informed the Court of Appeal that Bashco had withdrawn the appeal.
