Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) THESE two writ applications were heard together as those were interlinked to some extent.
(2.) IN the first writ application, being WP No. 2573 of 2001, the writ petitioners have prayed for declaration that they are entitled to get "duty -free clearance" of four consignments by virtue of their Advance License. The case made out by the writ petitioners in the first matter may be summarized thus : (a) The petitioners entered into four contracts for purchase of aluminium ingots from various foreign parties of Singapore. Those were purchased from the warehouses of London Metal Exchange and were of Indian origin. The vessel carrying aluminium ingots arrived at Calcutta Port in November, 2000. (b) The goods were in four consignments and the petitioners filed two Bills of Entries for the two of those consignments on the basis of the non -negotiable copies of Bill of Lading. The Customs Authority, however, did not allow release of the aforesaid consignments under duty -free scheme on the ground that those goods were of Indian origin and were necessarily dutiable. Since those two consignments for which Bills of Entry were filed were not released, the petitioners did not file Bills of Entry in respect of the third and fourth consignment but decided to approach this Court. After filing of the first writ application, the petitioners filed an application for interim order thereby praying for release of the two consignments for which Bills of Entry had already been filed. In respect of the second consignment, however, the petitioner had only the non -negotiable copy of Bill of Lading and the negotiable copy could not be collected as the banker of the foreign exporter had returned the same for non -payment by the petitioner.
(3.) A learned Single Judge of this Court having passed an interim order directing release of the first two consignments on giving a bond by the petitioners, the first consignment was released in favour of the writ petitioners on the basis of the Bill of Entry. So far the second consignment was concerned, as pointed out earlier, the petitioners could not get hold of the negotiable Bill of Lading and as such they could not acquire title to the goods for non -payment and consequently, could not take out the goods in spite of having an interim order.;