Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the writ petitioner has come up to this Court for a direction on the respondents to grant clearance of the subject goods comprising 18.75 Metric Tonnes presently lying in West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation upon payment of the assessed customs duty thereon and for other incidental reliefs.
(2.) In or about 1986, the writ petitioner, D.K. Corporation, which is a sole proprietary concern having its business at 72/74 Kika Street, Gulalwadi, Bombay-400 004, entered into an agreement with one M/s. Enfield Steel Corporation of London, U.K. to purchase 500 Metric Tonnes of stainless steel Mother Tubes/pipes. The shipment of the subject goods commenced from July, 1986 and part-shipment and transhipment were allowed and permitted. According to the writ petitioner for the purpose of and in connection with the importation of the subject goods under the contract dated 22nd January, 1986, the writ petitioner acquired valuable rights and benefits of the R.E.P. Licence from time to time. Pursuant to and in terms of the said contract, the foreign seller shipped the first consignment containing three bundles of stainless steel Seamless Mother Tubes containing a gross weight of 3,420 kgs under a bill of Lading dated 23rd July, 1986 for the port of discharge at Calcutta. The Customs Authorities, however, were not willing to release the said consignments as also the future consignments under the said contract dated 22nd January, 1986 inasmuch as the Customs Authorities were seeking to include freight and other expenses in the assessable value of the imported goods for the purpose of assessment of the customs duty. The writ petitioner moved a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Customs Authorities in November, 1986. On 5th December, 1986, a learned Judge of this Court by an order of the said date directed the Customs Authorities to clear the goods consigned on certain terms and conditions that were indicated in the said order. Subsequently, by another order dated 29th January, 1987, some modifications were made by the learned Judge. From the said order, it would appear that the said order would only relate to the goods which would be imported by the unit petitioner. Some typographical mistakes which cropped up in the said order were also corrected by a subsequent order passed on 10th February, 1987. Again, on the aforesaid writ application, another order was passed on 30th March, 1987, whereby the learned Single Judge passed an order to the following effect: "The respondents shall release the goods upon payment of duty as leviable in respect of the goods which would not answer the description of the mother pipe or in respect of which exemption notification dated 24.11.1986 is applicable. Let such goods be released within three days after the payment of the duty, if any."
(3.) It is not in dispute that on the basis of the aforesaid orders, the consigned goods which were involved in the said writ application were subsequently released by the Customs Authorities. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Customs Authorities that the consigned goods which are now involved in this writ application, were imported by the writ petitioner on the basis of the same contract, that is, 22-1-1986, and subsequently, the consigned goods, which are now involved in this writ application, had arrived in Calcutta Port in the month of December, 1987. Unfortunately, since December 1987, the consigned goods, which are now involved in this writ application, have not been released in favour of the writ petitioner by the Customs Authorities. It is on record that in the month of December, 1989, the Customs Authorities made an application in the disposed of writ petition praying for clarification and/or vacation and/or modification of the order dated 5th December, 1986, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, reference of which has already been made hereinabove. It is also on record that on 9th February, 1990, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order on the said application, inter alia, directing that until disposal of the said application for modification, the writ petitioner shall not ask for delivery of any further consignment on the basis of the order in respect of which clarification was sought for by the application for modification.;