DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) In this set of appeals, the Union of India and the authorities related with customs have questioned the orders dated 15.10.2020 and 05.01.2021, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (L) Nos. 3502-3503 of 2020 and Writ Petition (ST) No. 24 of 2021 respectively[1]. The appellants are essentially aggrieved of the directions issued by the High Court for compliance of the orders-in-original dated 28.08.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Group-I, Mumbai and consequently, for release of the goods imported by the private respondents though the goods in question are, according to the appellants, liable to absolute confiscation. [1] The order dated 15.10.2020 is to be read with the modification order dated 09.12.2020 in I.A. (L) No. 5735 of 2020 in Writ Petition (L) No. 3502 of 2020. 2.1. Looking to the subject-matter of the present appeals involving a multitude of issues and several of the background aspects, we may profitably draw a brief outline and sketch of the matter at the outset.
(3.) The genesis of the present litigation lies in the notifications issued by the Central Government under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992[2] as also the consequential trade notices issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade[3], making provisions for restricting the import of certain beans, peas and pulses. 3.1. In the preceding years, such notifications and trade notices were put to challenge in different High Courts by way of writ petitions wherein, different interim orders were passed and the importers effected various imports on the strength of such interim orders. However, the said writ petitions were ultimately dismissed by the High Courts and one petition seeking special leave to appeal was also dismissed by this Court. Similar notifications and trade notice issued in the subsequent year, on restriction of import of certain beans, peas and pulses, were again challenged in different High Courts and, notwithstanding the rejection of a similar challenge in the past by other High Courts, various interim orders were again passed; and the importers again proceeded to effect various imports under the cover of such interim orders. [2] Hereinafter also referred to as 'the FTDR Act'. [3] Hereinafter also referred to as 'the DGFT for short. 3.2. Faced with such challenges and interim orders in different High Courts, the Union of India filed various transfer petitions, seeking transfer of the cases relating to the same subject-matter to this Court. Having regard to the nature of controversy and surrounding factors, this Court heard the matters on merits so as to finally deal with the challenge to the notifications and the trade notice in question. This led to the judgment dated 26.08.2020 by this Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Agricas LLP and Ors.[4] upholding such notifications dated 29.03.2019, issued by the Central Government as also the consequential trade notice dated 16.04.2019, issued by the DGFT. [4] Since reported as 2020 SCC OnLine SC 675; hereinafter also referred to as the case of 'Agricas'. 3.3. In the said judgment dated 26.08.2020, this Court, apart from other findings, held that the importers cannot be said to be under any bona fide belief in effecting the imports under the cover of interim orders; and they would face the consequences in law. While dismissing the writ petitions, this Court held that the imports made while relying on the interim orders were contrary to the said notifications and trade notice issued under the FTDR Act; and would be so dealt with under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962[5]. However, this judgment has also not given a quietus to the litigation and the events taking place after this decision have given rise to the present appeals. [5] Hereinafter also referred to as 'the Customs Act'.;