Retrospective refund embargo permits review; deemed adjustment fails absent quantified liability under the statute.

A retrospective statutory amendment extending the embargo on refund of security furnished for release of seized goods rendered an earlier refund direction inconsistent with the amended scheme, so the High Court's review jurisdiction under article 226 could be invoked for error apparent and the direction was modified. The plea that the security had been automatically refunded or adjusted before the fresh embargo took effect was rejected because section 29 permits adjustment only against an ascertained and quantified liability, which had not been shown. The security amounts were therefore made refundable only after the statutory embargo ceased to operate.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the earlier direction to refund the security amount could be reviewed in view of a retrospective amendment extending the statutory embargo on refund; (ii) whether the security amount could be treated as having been automatically refunded or adjusted during the interval before the fresh embargo took effect.

Issue (i): whether the earlier direction to refund the security amount could be reviewed in view of a retrospective amendment extending the statutory embargo on refund

Analysis: The earlier order directing refund had become inconsistent with the amended statutory scheme because the later amendment operated retrospectively and continued the prohibition on refund of securities furnished for release of goods seized under section 28-A. A High Court has inherent power to review its judgment under article 226 where an error apparent on the face of the record is shown, and a subsequent retrospective amendment rendering the earlier direction contrary to law constitutes such an error.

Conclusion: The earlier refund direction was rightly held to be reviewable and liable to modification.

Issue (ii): whether the security amount could be treated as having been automatically refunded or adjusted during the interval before the fresh embargo took effect

Analysis: Section 29 contemplates adjustment of refundable amounts only against an ascertained and quantified outstanding liability. No such liability was shown to have been determined during the relevant period, and the doctrine of automatic adjustment could not operate to defeat the subsequently restored statutory embargo. The legal fiction of deemed adjustment could not survive once the refund itself was retrospectively made non-refundable.

Conclusion: The contention of deemed refund or automatic adjustment was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The review applications succeeded, and the earlier refund direction was modified so that the security amounts would be refunded only after the statutory embargo ceased to operate.

Ratio Decidendi: A judgment may be reviewed where a retrospective statutory amendment renders an earlier direction contrary to law, and a refund claimed under a deemed-adjustment theory cannot arise unless there is an ascertained outstanding liability capable of adjustment under the statute.

---