Respondents' Violation of Court Order Leads to Immediate Goods Release

The court found that the respondents violated the court order by failing to release imported goods within the specified time frame and imposing additional security requirements not contemplated by the order. Despite the respondents' apology, the court directed them to release the goods within 48 hours upon the petitioner's compliance with a P.D. Bond and a 30% revenue deposit. The petitioner was awarded costs, and the court refused the respondents' request for a stay, instructing all parties to act on a xeroxed signed copy of the judgment and order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Contempt of Court
2. Provisional Assessment and Release of Imported Goods
3. Compliance with Supreme Court Order
4. Implementation of Customs Provisional Duty Assessment Regulations, 1963

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Contempt of Court:
The petitioner alleged that the respondents committed contempt by failing to release the necessary documents for obtaining the release of the goods within 48 hours, as ordered on 27th September 1994. The petitioner argued that the respondents' actions constituted both direct and indirect violations of the court order. The respondents contended that they had complied with the provisional assessment before the specified time and that any delays were due to the petitioner's objections and the Durgapuja festival. The court found that the respondents had violated the order both directly and indirectly, as they could not have anticipated the petitioner's non-compliance with the provisional assessment conditions. The court deemed the respondents' explanations for not handing over the Bills of Entry unacceptable.

2. Provisional Assessment and Release of Imported Goods:
The petitioner imported Koyo Brand Bearings and sought clearance in April 1994. Due to the respondents' failure to provisionally assess and release the goods, a writ application was moved, resulting in the court order of 27th September 1994. The order directed the respondents to make a provisional assessment by 15th October 1994 and release the goods within 48 hours upon compliance with the provisional assessment terms. The respondents provisionally assessed the petitioner's goods but imposed additional conditions, including a bank guarantee for Rs. 12,02,536/-, which represented 100% of the duty difference. The court found that the respondents had not followed the Supreme Court's order exactly and had imposed additional security requirements not contemplated by the court order.

3. Compliance with Supreme Court Order:
The court order of 27th September 1994 was based on a similar Supreme Court order regarding the import of Koyo Brand Ball Bearings. The Supreme Court directed provisional assessment within three weeks and release of goods upon compliance with the terms, including execution of a bond. If provisional assessment was not made, the goods were to be released upon payment of customs duty based on the Bill of Entry valuation and a bond for 50% excess value. The court noted that the respondents had implemented the Supreme Court order by provisionally assessing the Bill of Entry on declared value with a 20% revenue deposit and requiring a P.D. Bond. However, in the petitioner's case, the respondents imposed additional conditions, which the court found to be a deviation from the Supreme Court order.

4. Implementation of Customs Provisional Duty Assessment Regulations, 1963:
The respondents relied on the Customs Provisional Duty Assessment Regulations, 1963, particularly clauses 2 and 4, to justify their imposition of 100% security by way of a bank guarantee. Clause 2 allows provisional assessment upon execution of a bond and a deposit not exceeding 20% of the provisional duty. Clause 4 allows the proper officer to require surety or security for the bond. The court found that the respondents had provisionally assessed other importers of identical goods based on Clause 2, requiring a bond and a 20% cash deposit. The court concluded that the respondents' imposition of 100% security was inconsistent with their treatment of other importers and the court order.

Conclusion:
The court held that the respondents had violated the order dated 27th September 1994 both directly and indirectly. Although the respondents tendered an unconditional apology, the court directed them to release the goods within 48 hours upon the petitioner executing a P.D. Bond and making a 30% revenue deposit. The petitioner was also awarded costs of the application assessed at 100 G.Ms. The court refused the respondents' request for a stay and directed all parties to act on a xeroxed signed copy of the judgment and order.

---