Writ petition challenging Customs Act notice dismissed; petitioners liable for 10% interest per annum.

The Court held that the writ petition challenging a notice of attachment and certificate under the Customs Act was not maintainable due to principles of res-judicata. The petitioners were found liable for payment of interest at 10% per annum as per the Supreme Court's order, with the Customs Act provisions used for recovery purposes only. The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the interest determination was based on the Supreme Court's directive, and the petitioners' attempt to re-litigate the issue was barred by res-judicata.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notice of attachment and certificate under the Customs Act, 1962. Maintainability of the writ petition. Applicability of Customs Act provisions for determining interest. Barred by principles of res-judicata. Liability for payment of interest at 10% per annum.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged a notice of attachment and a certificate issued by the Dy. Commissioner, Customs, under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners argued that the demand of interest and notices of attachment were invalid as per a previous judgment by the Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court, which held that the Customs Act provisions could not be invoked for interest calculation. However, the respondents contended that the current writ petition was not maintainable as a previous petition for the same relief had been withdrawn with liberty to seek clarification from the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the petitioners had withdrawn the earlier petition seeking clarification on interest payment, and filing a fresh petition on different grounds was barred by res-judicata.

The Court observed that the Supreme Court had previously allowed the recovery of interest at 10% along with a fine. The petitioners were held liable for payment of interest at the specified rate based on the Supreme Court's order. The communication requiring the petitioners to pay interest did not reference the Customs Act provisions but only mentioned the Supreme Court's order. Subsequently, when the petitioners failed to pay the interest, the respondents invoked the Customs Act provisions for recovery purposes only, not for interest determination.

Considering the facts and legal precedents, the Court concluded that the present writ petition was not maintainable due to principles of res-judicata and lacked merit. The judgment highlighted that the determination of interest was based on the Supreme Court's order, and the Customs Act provisions were used for incidental power to facilitate recovery. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition on grounds of res-judicata and merit, affirming the liability of the petitioners for payment of interest at 10% per annum as directed by the Supreme Court.

---