The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday awarded damages of over N5.5billion against the Nigerian Customs Service (NCS) and the Chairman of its Board over the unlawful seizure of 90 containers of rice imported by a firm, Maggpiy Trading TFZE.
Maggpiy, in its suit marked FHC/CA/CS/40/2017, stated that officials of the NCS invaded and sealed up its warehouse in the Tinapa Free Trade Zone (TFTZ), Calabar on March 18, 2017.
The firm said in the suit that the warehouse had rice stored in air-tight containers.
The plaintiff said, in addition to sealing its warehouse with its content, officials of the NCS stole part of the seized rice.
It said the Customs also detained its 40 trucks along Onne, Port-Harcourt road, containing 317 transit containers of rice, destined for the Tinapa Free Trade Zone, for 120 days without lawful justification.
Delivering judgment on Wednesday, Justice Inyang Ekwo upheld the plaintiff’s claims and held that the first and second defendants, that is the NCS and the Chairman of NCSB, acted unlawfully and without any justification in law.
Mr Ekwo rejected the defence raised by the customs and the NCSB chairman, and their attempt to justify their actions.
He faulted the first and second defendants’ claim that they acted under the Federal Ministry of Finance Import Guidelines, Procedures and Documentation Requirements under the Destination Inspection Scheme in Nigeria.
Mr Ekwo said that not only was the document inadmissible and worthless, having not been signed; there was no provision in the document that made it applicable to Free Trade Zones.
“I have studied the document, I cannot find anywhere it is made applicable to Free Trade Zones, which both parties have agreed, is a country within a country.”
The court also rejected some circular tendered by the customs to justify their action.
Mr Ekwo held that not only were most of the circulars made after the plaintiff’s rice consignment was seized on March 18, 2017, but the defendants also failed to show the law and orders pursuant to which the circulars were issued.
“The circular made on March 30, 2017, declaring Free Trade Zones, as land borders cannot apply to this case because it does not have a retrospective effect.
“Therefore, the circulars, made after the plaintiff had imported the rice, and relied upon by the first and second defendants, do not apply to this case,” the judge said.
He also faulted the defendant’s argument that they were exempted, under the Customs and Excise Management Act, from any liability and prosecution while applying the provisions of the law.