Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the contempt application should proceed on the allegation of non-compliance with the earlier order concerning cessation of anti-dumping duty levy and refund of amounts collected after the judgment.
Analysis: The levy ought not to have continued after the earlier judgment, but the Court accepted the explanation that the continued collection resulted from an inadvertent misinterpretation of its direction and not from wilful or deliberate disobedience. The affidavits disclosed that the duty collection had been stopped, a decision to refund the amounts collected had been taken, and the refund applications were being processed. In these circumstances, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the contempt matter pending.
Conclusion: The contempt application was not proceeded with further and was disposed of.
Final Conclusion: The Court accepted the explanation tendered by the alleged contemnors, noted the steps taken to stop the levy and process refund, and brought the contempt proceeding to an end without adjudicating any contempt liability.
Ratio Decidendi: Where alleged non-compliance is satisfactorily explained as inadvertent and corrective steps have been taken to secure compliance and refund, contempt jurisdiction need not be continued in the absence of wilful disobedience.