Court directs consideration of Import General Manifest amendment application with indemnity bond. Order allows legal remedies.

The court directed the concerned authority to consider the application for amendment to the Import General Manifest, with the petitioner executing an indemnity bond. The court clarified its order did not express an opinion on rival contentions and allowed respondent nos. 4 and 5 to pursue legal remedies. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, ensuring protection of all parties' interests.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to amend Import General Manifest under Customs Act, 1962 and allow clearance of goods.

Analysis:
Upon hearing the petitioner's counsel and respondent nos. 2 and 3, the court passed an order where the respondent's affidavit was taken on record, and the petitioner's counsel agreed to make an additional attempt to serve notices personally to respondent nos. 4 and 5. The petitioner's counsel argued that the order sought would not prejudice the rights of respondent nos. 4 and 5, citing a similar case. The matter was adjourned to a later date for further proceedings.

At the subsequent hearing, the petitioner's counsel provided an affidavit proving service of the writ petition to respondent nos. 4 and 5. It was noted that although respondent nos. 4 and 5 did not accept the packets, the court was satisfied that they were aware of the petition. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 stated they acted as per a circular, but there was a dispute regarding an objection certificate. The petitioner sought an amendment to the Import General Manifest, referencing a previous court order from 2016.

Considering the previous judgment and protecting the interests of all parties, the court directed the concerned authority to consider the application for amendment to the Import General Manifest. The petitioner was required to execute an indemnity bond in favor of the authorities to indemnify them against any claims or protests raised by private parties regarding the goods. The court clarified that its order did not express an opinion on the rival contentions and allowed respondent nos. 4 and 5 to pursue legal remedies. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

---