TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Mr. N. Venkatraman, A.S.G., Mr. V.C. Bharathi, Adv., Mr. A.K. Kaul, Adv., Mr. H.R. Rao, Adv., Ms. Neelakshi Bhaduria, Adv.,Ms. Kritagya Kait, Adv. Mr. Ishan Shamra, Adv., Mr. G. S. Makker, AOR, Adv., Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR. ORDER PER 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the orders passed by the High Court at Calcutta in CC/8/2022 being a contempt proceeding initiated by the first respondent as against the officers of the respondent(s)-Department, namely, the Customs Department. The three impugned orders are dated 17.02.2022, 04.03.2022 and 18.04.2022. 3. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the first respondent and learned counsel for the respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te has been issued. The department should not frustrate the order and direction issued in our judgment and order dated 24.11.2021, more particularly, when the department has not preferred any appeal against our judgment and the same has attained finality. Therefore, the department is directed to issue detention certificate for the entire period of detention, that is, till the goods are released in terms of the direction issued earlier." (ii) In the order dated 04.03.2022: "Regulation 10 of the said regulation deals with responsibility of the authorised carrier under the regulations. Clause (1) of Regulation 10(1) states that an authorised carrier shall not demand any container detention charges for the containers laden with the goods de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... then the officials of the department are liable for contempt. We find that CFS and the shipping line are not parties to this application. Therefore, we grant liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in this regard. In the meantime, we leave it to the respondent/department to sort out the issues, failing which the Court may be constrained to draw adverse inference and pass stringent orders." (iii) The entire order dated 18.04.2022 which has determined the rights of the appellant herein vis-a-vis the first respondent. 6. This is inasmuch as the said adjudication in a contempt jurisdiction was firstly, wholly unnecessary and secondly, an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction; that the contempt petition was filed by the first re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned orders would not in any way impact the respondent(s)-Customs Department. Learned counsel therefore, submitted that the appeal lacks merit and hence may be dismissed. 10. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in light of the impugned orders and the directions issued by the High Court. 11. It is not in dispute that as against the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in APOT/170/2021 and OCOT NO.2 of 2021 by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta, certain directions were issued and the lis between the first respondent and the respondent(s)-Customs Department was concluded. It is as against the directions issued in the said order that the first respondent initiated Contempt Petition viz., CC/8/2022 before the High Court....