AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Since, the issues involved in all the contempt petitions are similar in nature, they have been taken up together and a
common order is being passed.
These contempt petitions have been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the Respondents for their willful disobedience of the
orders passed by this Court in the above writ petitions.
This Court, by its orders passed in the above writ petitions, had directed the Respondents to release the goods in question, forthwith, on the
Petitioners depositing 25% of the enhanced value, apart from paying the applicable rate of duty on the enhanced value.
The learned Counsels for the Petitioners had submitted that, in spite of the said directions having been issued by this Court, the Respondents had
refused to release the goods in question. The Respondents had also filed writ appeals against some of the orders passed by this Court in the above
writ petitions. In the said writ appeals, in W.A. Nos. 1190 to 1194 of 2011 and M.P. Nos. 1 to 1 of 2011, filed by the Respondents, the First
Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 20.7.2011, had passed the following order:
The appeals will be heard. The prayer for stay is refused. The Appellant is directed to comply with the order of the learned single Judge within two
weeks from today upon the writ petition as complying with the directions issued therein. Put up after three weeks.
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents had submitted that in view of the said direction issued by the First Bench of this
Court and in compliance with the orders passed by this Court, the Respondents had released the goods in question.
The learned Counsel for the Respondents had also submitted that the Detention Certificates had also been issued to the Petitioners.
The learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioners had submitted that the Petitioners had cleared the goods in question, as per the
directions issued by this Court, and they had also paid the demurrage charges.
The learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioners had further submitted that the Petitioners should be permitted to claim the refund of
the demurrage charges paid by the Petitioners, in view of the Detention Certificates issued by the Respondents.
In such circumstances, in view of the fact that the goods in question had been cleared by the Respondents, as directed by this Court, this Court
is of the view that No. further orders are necessary in the present contempt petitions. Hence, the contempt petitions are closed. However, it goes
without saying that it would be open to the Petitioners to make a claim for the refund of the demurrage charges paid by them, if so advised, in the
manner known to law. No. costs. Connected Sub A. Nos. 439, 440 and 441, 387, 388, and 389, 404 and 405, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419 and
420, 451, 452, 453, and 454 of 2011 are closed.