2024 (10) TMI 580 - HC - Customs

Contempt Petitions Dismissed: Compliance Found, Natural Justice Upheld; Petitioner Encouraged to Appeal via Customs Act.

Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. Versus Trupti D Chavan Deputy Commissioner of Customs CRC-I JNCH.

The Bombay HC dismissed two Contempt Petitions, ruling that the alleged non-compliance with its order did not constitute contempt. The Court determined ... Contempt of court - disregarding the court's directions on payment of interest on delayed refund amounts - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating officer was directed to decide the interest claim of the Petitioner after due compliance with the principles of natural justice. The adjudicating officer made an order dated 15 May 2024 after complying with the principles of natural justice. The issue as to whether this order is correct or not can always be examined in appropriate proceedings. However, even assuming that the incorrect order is made, that would not invite any action under the Contempt of Courts Act. Further, it cannot be usually presumed that a wrong order has been made deliberately or to frustrate the orders made by this Court. The non-entertainment of this Contempt Petition would be without prejudice to such entitlement of the Petitioners. Such non-entertainment is without prejudice to the Petitioner taking out appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court to challenge the orders made by the adjudicating authority - Petition is therefore not entertained - Contempt Petitions are disposed of. Issues: Alleged contempt of court for disregarding court's directions on payment of interest on delayed refund amounts.The judgment by the High Court of Bombay involved two Contempt Petitions alleging contempt of the court's directions issued in an order dated 19 March 2024, related to a Writ Petition. The Petitioner, represented by Ms. Raminder Kaur, argued that the adjudicating officer ignored the court's observations regarding the entitlement to interest on delayed refund amounts under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Petitioner claimed that this disregard amounted to deliberate disobedience of the court's orders and sought action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the Respondent for an order dated 15 May 2024.On the other hand, Mr. Adik, representing the Respondent, contended that no contempt was involved as the Respondents had acted in accordance with the law. He mentioned that the Petitioner had already challenged the order dated 15 May 2024 through a separate Writ Petition. Mr. Adik argued that the matter could be examined on its merits in appropriate proceedings and asserted that there was no disobedience, let alone willful disobedience, of the court's order.The Court considered both arguments and examined the record. The Court concluded that the case did not warrant the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction. It pointed out that in the previous order, the adjudicating officer was directed to decide on the interest claim after following the principles of natural justice, which was done in the subsequent order dated 15 May 2024. The Court clarified that even if the decision was incorrect, it did not automatically amount to contempt. The Court emphasized that assuming a wrong decision was made, it could not be presumed to be deliberate disobedience of the court's orders.Furthermore, the Court noted that the Petitioner's substantive reliefs regarding the order dated 15 May 2024 should be sought through appropriate legal proceedings and not a Contempt Petition. The Court highlighted that the order itself was appealable under the Customs Act, and the Petitioner could challenge it through the proper channels. Consequently, the Court decided not to entertain the Contempt Petition, emphasizing that the Petitioner could pursue suitable actions before the appropriate forum to challenge the orders made by the adjudicating authority.In conclusion, the Court disposed of both Contempt Petitions without any costs, maintaining that the non-entertainment of the petitions did not prejudice the Petitioner's right to seek redress through the appropriate legal avenues.