Court dismisses customs duty refund petition after 12 years, directs repayment with interest.

The court dismissed the petition for refund of customs duty paid, as withdrawn by the petitioner after 12 years, citing unfavorable Supreme Court judgments. The court directed the refunded amount to be returned with interest at 12% per annum to compensate the revenue for the interim refund granted earlier. The petitioner, who had withdrawn the refunded amount on a bank guarantee, was required to encash the guarantee and pay the realized amount to the revenue, including the interest earned on the refunded amount. The court refused to grant a stay on the order, emphasizing the necessity of refunding with interest due to the unsuccessful petition.

---

---

Issues:
Refund application for customs duty paid, withdrawal of petition based on Supreme Court judgments, direction to bring back refunded amount with interest, calculation of interest rate, encashment of bank guarantee, payment of interest to revenue, refusal to grant stay on the order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed refund applications for customs duty paid on goods cleared between Aug. 1986 to Dec. 1986, based on decisions of other importers. The petition was filed before the refund application could be decided, and the court directed the respondents to deposit the refund amount in court with a bank guarantee.

2. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition after 12 years, citing Supreme Court judgments that answered the issues against the petitioner. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn but noted that the refunded amount must be returned with interest to compensate the revenue for the interim refund granted earlier.

3. The court found that the petitioner had withdrawn the refunded amount on furnishing a bank guarantee but failed to renew it promptly. The petitioner later renewed the bank guarantee and claimed to have earned interest on the refunded amount during this period.

4. The petitioner provided details of interest earned on the fixed deposit amount, confirming interest earned from 6-3-1991 to 6-3-2002 at a rate of 15% per annum. The court decided that the petitioner must return the principal amount with interest to compensate the revenue.

5. Considering the interest rate, the court directed the refund with interest at 12% per annum, deducting expenses for obtaining the bank guarantee. The court ordered the encashment of the bank guarantee and payment of the realized amount to the revenue, with the petitioner required to pay the interest amount to the revenue within a specified time.

6. The court rejected the petitioner's request for a stay on the order, noting that the petitioner had already earned interest on the refunded amount. The court emphasized that the refund with interest was necessary since the petition failed, unlike cases where petitioners succeeded, and bank guarantees were returned without interest.

7. The court clarified that the relief was granted under writ jurisdiction, and the refund was subject to the petition's result. The court highlighted the distinction between cases where petitioners succeeded and were entitled to return of bank guarantees without interest, unlike the present case where the refunded amount must be returned with interest to the revenue.

---