Venkataramiah, J. - (1.) These appeals by special leave are filed against the Order dated 26-6-1986 passed in Appeal No. 512 of 1986 in Writ Petition No. 1007 of 1986 and the Order dated 26-6-1986 in Appeal No. 535 of 1986 in Writ Petition No. 1424 of 1986 of the High Court of Bombay. Since these two are connected matters, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) The facts of these two cases are these. The appellant in both these appeals is the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the Port Trust') and respondent 1 in both these appeals is a partnership firm by name M/s. Jai Hind Oil Mills Company. Respondent 1 imported 5 consignments of propylene of 10 metric tons each in January, 1986 by S. S. Maribor. The general landing date of the said consignments was 20th January, 1986 and the last free date in respect of them was 23rd January, 1986. Thereafter the said consignments were incurring demurrage. The bills of entry were submitted by respondent 1 to the customs authorities in the same month. Disputes arose between respondent 1 and the customs authorities with regard to the basic customs duty payable in excess of 32.50% (as goods were imported from the Republic of Korea which was a developing country), with regard to loading the assessable value with customs duty for calculation of the additional duty and with regard to loading the CIF value with the landing charges. Not being satisfied with the contentions of the customs authorities respondent I filed a writ petition in Writ Petition No. 122 of 1986 for the issue of certain directions to the customs authorities with regard to the levy of customs duty. In that Writ Petition on January 21, 1986 the High Court passed an interim order which directed the customs authorities not to insist on payment of the customs duty in dispute pending hearing and disposal of the writ petition on respondent 1 furnishing a bank guarantee to the extent of the 90 per cent of the disputed amount of duty in respect of one item and 100 per cent of the disputed amount of duty in respect of two other items in favour of the Collector of Customs. Thereafter some correspondence ensued between respondent 1 and the customs authorities in connection with the description of the above goods. It would appear that while the bill of lading and the invoice described the goods as 'propylene' the marks on the consignments indicated that they contained 'polypropylene'. Respondent I was asked to explain the discrepancy by the customs authorities. There was also some dispute raised as regards the invoice price. Respondent 1 could not, however, clear the goods from the Port of Bombay. Thereafter respondent I filed another Writ Petition No. 519 of 1986 for the issue of a direction to the customs authorities to permit it to clear the consignments. On April 2, 1986 the learned single Judge of the High Court of Bombay who heard the said Writ Petition passed an order allowing respondent 1 to clear the consignments on furnishing an import trade control bond for the value of the consignments calculated at the rate of US $ 735 per metric ton and furnishing a bank guarantee of a nationalised bank in favour of the Collector Of Customs. Bombay, to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay, for a sum equivalent to the difference in the value between US $ 715 and US $ 735 per metric ton without prejudice to the rights and contentions of respondent 1. The said order provided that the customs authorities could continue their investigation and adjudicate upon the duty payable by respondent 1. On the basis of the above order respondent 1 was allowed to withdraw the Writ Petition with liaberty to file a fresh petition, if required. Since there was a delay in the clearance of the consignments in question and respondent 1 had become liable to pay demurrage to the Port Trust, respondent 1 addressed a letter to the Collector of Customs, Bombay, asking him to issue a detention certificate stating that the goods had been detained for bona fide import trade control. formalities so that it could claim the remission of demurrage payable to the Port Trust. Respondent 1 followed up the above letter by another Writ Petition No. 1007 of 1986 which was filed on or about the 17th April, 1986 against the customs authorities for the issue of a writ directing them to issue a detention certificate in respect of all the 5 consignments. On the 24th April, 1986 the learned single Judge passed a final order directing the customsauthorities to issue a detention certificate to respondent 1 on respondent 1 giving an undertaking to the Court that it would pay the amount, if it failed in Writ Petition 122 of 1986. Pursuant to the Order dated 24th April, 1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 1007 of 1986 respondent 1 gave an undertaking to the Court that it would pay the amount upon its not succeeding in Writ Petition No. 122 of 1986. On the 21st May, 1986 the Port Trust received a letter dated 19th May, 1986 from the Assistant Collector of Customs in which it had been stated inter alia that five detention certificates had been sent along with the said letter. Actually no enclosures were received along with the said letter. But later on they received two detention certificates in respect of two out of the five consignments on that day. They related to two bills of entry bearing Nos. 3133/219 and 3133/220. On the same day the Docks Manager of the Port Trust received a letter from the clearing agent of respondent 1 asking the Port Trust to grant the remission of demurrage in view of the detention certificates issued by the customs authorities. Since the Port Trust was not a party to any of the Writ Petitions, referred to above, and no bank guarantee or demanddraft had been furnished by respondent 1 covering the 80% amount of the demurrage fees, the Port Trust, wrote a letter dated 30th May, 1986 to respondent 1 asking respondent 1 to give a bank guarantee to the effect that in the event of respondent 1 losing Writ Petition No. 122 of 1986 it would pay to the Port Trust, Bombay, the entire amount of remission along with interest at 15% per annum. When the aforesaid letter was sent , the Port Trust was not aware of the Order dated 2nd April, 1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 519 of 1986. Thereupon, on June 12, 1986 respondent 1 and its partner Sham Lal KishnanL who is respondent 2 herein filed another Writ Petition No. 1424 of 1986 in the High Court against the Port Trust for quashing the communication dated 30th May 1986, referred to above, under which the Port Trust had asked respondent 1 to furnish the bank guarantee or a demand draft to the extent of 80% of the demurrage fees claimed by the Port Trust and for compelling the Port Trust to honour the detention certificates issued by the customs authorities pursuant to the Order dated 24th April, 1986 and to permit the clearance of the goods without payment of demurrage and without insisting upon the furnishing of a bank guarantee or a demand draft, as stated above. They also asked for an interim order to the effect that pending hearing and final disposal of the said Writ Petition, the Port Trust should forthwith honour the detention certificates issued by the customs authorities and allow the clearance of the goods without payment of demurrage and without insisting on the bank guarantee or the demand draft. In that Writ Petition an interim order was passed on the 17th June, 1986 as prayed for by respondent 1. Thereafter the Port Trust was advised to file an appeal before the Division Bench against the Order dated 2nd April, 1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 519 of 1986 and the Order dated l7th June, 1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 1424 of 1986. While the Port Trust was in the process of getting the said appeals made ready for filing by their advocates. respondent 1 threatened the Port Trust with contempt proceedings by its letter dated 20th June, 1986. Immediately after the receipt of the said letter, the Port Trust lodged the Appeal No. 512 of 1986. By an order dated 26th June, 1986 the appeal filed against the order dated 2nd April, 1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 1007 of 1986 was summarily dismissed. The said order, however, stated as under: "It is, however, clarified that it is clear from the impugned order dated 24-4-1986 that the undertaking pertains to the demurrage charges payable to the Port Trust, if respondents 1 and 2 (petitioners) failed in Writ Petition No. 122 of 1986 on the footing that no valid detention certificate could have been issued in that event. Mr. Chinoy contends that the detention certificate could not be issued, if in the adjudication proceedings the petitioners are found at fault and the question of the .petitioners giving an undertaking to provide for this does not appear to have been present in the mind of the learned Judge when the order was passed. Liberty to the appellants to seek further clarification and/or orders on this question from the learned single Judge.
(3.) The appeal filed against the Order dated 17th June, 1986 in Writ Petition No. 1424 of 1986 was numbered as Appeal No. 535 of 1986. The said appeal was also summarily dismissed on 26th June, 1986. As the Port Trust was advised to file an appeal in this Court by special leave. the Port Trust did not apply to the learned single Judge for clarification as suggested in the Order passed in Appeal No. 512 of 1986.;