Abstract:
The Ramle Magistrate’s Court partially granted a claim for the return of seized goods, ruling that one shipment of goods would remain with Customs, while two additional seized shipments were to be returned to the plaintiff.
Background and Facts of the Case:
Seizure, forfeiture, and confiscation are three distinct actions pertaining to goods in customs law: A customs officer is authorized to seize goods that are “forfeited or that he has reasonable grounds to believe are forfeited”; forfeiture of goods under the Customs Ordinance is the legal status of the goods until it is decided whether they will be confiscated; confiscation is the transfer of ownership of the forfeited goods to the state. Between the act of forfeiture and the act of confiscation, the owner of the goods may file within two months a claim with the court for the return of the goods.
In March 2020, three shipments belonging to the plaintiff arrived at the Ashdod Port, containing various goods, which he declared were for personal use (to obtain an exemption from the Standards Institute approval) and destined for Gaza. In May, June, and July 2020, the three shipments were seized, with one shipment of goods being seized at the Tarqumiyah crossing in southern Hebron Hills (i.e., were not sent to Gaza).
The plaintiff approached Customs regarding the three shipments, arguing that the seizure procedures were illegal and should be nullified, and requested the return of the seized goods. Customs responded that the request for exemption from the Standards Institute approval was obtained fraudulently to mislead Customs, and it was doubtful whether the criteria were met. Additionally, the goods intended for Gaza were seized in Tarqumiyah crossing, meaning they were intended for marketing there without the appropriate approvals. Consequently, a criminal investigation was initiated, and a decision was made to forfeit the goods.
Parties’ Arguments:
The plaintiff contends that the seizures should be cancelled and the goods returned, as he made his declarations in good faith based on the information available to him. he transferred the goods to the Tarqumiyah checkpoint to arrange them on pallets for transfer to Gaza; the defendant lacked sufficient grounds for seizing the goods in bond; as mere suspicion is insufficient for seizing and forfeiting goods; the permits granted to the plaintiff were not limited to Gaza alone but to all Palestinian Authority areas. Therefore, the seizures and forfeitures of the goods were unlawful.
Customs argued that the claim should be dismissed, inter alia, because the plaintiff misled in his declaration regarding the first shipment concerning the place of release of the goods; and further misled by claiming the goods were for personal use, also given the quantities involved, and fraudulently obtained an exemption from the Standards Institute approval. Regarding the other two shipments, they were seized in the licensed warehouse under Customs supervision before their departure due to suspicion that they too were intended for the territories.
Court’s Ruling:
The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument regarding the goods seized at the Tarqumiyah checkpoint, as it is easier to transfer goods from Tarqumiyah into the West Bank than to Gaza. The plaintiff did not coordinate this matter with Customs or obtain its approval, and this omission increases the implausibility of the plaintiff’s transfer of goods to Tarqumiyah.
Regarding the other two shipments, the court accepted the plaintiff’s position and rejected Customs’ arguments. Concerning the claim that the plaintiff intended to transfer the goods to the West Bank (as he did with the goods in the first shipment), the court found this was mere suspicion, and goods imported into the country cannot be seized or forfeited based on suspicion alone.
Furthermore, Customs did not prove that the approvals received by the plaintiff were obtained fraudulently, as it failed to bring relevant witnesses on its behalf regarding this matter due to security claims that were not fully presented to the court. Therefore, this doubt operates against Customs.
In light of the above, the court ordered Customs to return the two shipments seized in the licensed warehouse but allowed them to retain the goods seized in the territories. Given the outcome of the judgment, the court ruled that each party shall bear its own costs.
The content is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to be comprehensive. It does not serve to replace professional legal advice required on a case by case basis.
