(J. Chelameswar and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
M/s Magus Metals (P) Ltd. and Anr ___________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
P E Prasad Regional Manager Inc ____________________ Respondent
Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 456/2014 in C.A. No. 5720/2008, decided on November 25, 2016
This petition was called on for hearing today.
The Order of the court was delivered by
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
1. This contempt petition arises out of Civil Appeal No. 5720 of 2008. Certain goods imported by the petitioner were held to be liable for confiscation by the Customs authorities. On appeal, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) held otherwise. The question in the Civil Appeal no. 5720/2008 is the correctness and legality of the order of the said order.
2. During the pendency of the proceedings before the customs authorities and the Tribunal, the imported goods by the petitioner were stored in the warehouse maintained by the Central Warehousing Authority.
3. In view of the fact that the petitioner herein succeeded before the Tribunal, the petitioner is entitled to have the goods released. It may be pertinent to mention here that there is no interim order of this Court staying the operation of the Tribunal’s decision.
4. However, the respondent: Warehousing Authority is demanding the payment of demurrages from the petitioner-importer. Interestingly, the demurrages amount to Rs. 95 lakhs (approximately) whereas the original value of the goods at that point of time of import was Rs. 12 lakhs.
5. Assuming for the sake of argument, for the present, that the respondent is entitled to recover demurrages for the goods deposited with it, the question is who is liable to pay such demurrages when the goods are deposited pursuant to an order of the customs authority but not because of volition on the part of the importer.
6. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and having regard to the fact that the appeal mentioned above is pending before this Court for about 8 years, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent to release the goods in question to the petitioner subject to the condition the petitioner gives a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs within a period of three weeks. On receipt of the said bank guarantee, the goods shall be released by the respondent within 24 hours thereafter.
7. In view of the above order, we do not see any reason to proceed with the contempt case at present. We deem it appropriate that the appeal be itself listed for hearing along with the contempt case in the second week of February, 2017.
———
