Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that this petition formed part of group of petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.8306 of 2004 and connected petitions. Rest of the matters in this group of petitions came to be disposed of by a common order dated 20th June 2012, as under: “These petitions arise in similar background. We, therefore, notice briefly the background of the case as emerging in Special Civil Application No.8306 of 2004. In the said petition, the petitioner-importer had prayed for an appropriate writ or direction quashing the seizure memo dated 4th June 2004 and further directing the respondents to clear the goods of the petitioner or in the alternative to permit provisional assessment as per the Customs Act, 1962 and the Rules made thereunder.
While admitting this petition, by order dated 3rd August 2004, a Division Bench of this Court after by-parte hearing passed a detailed order granting provisional release of the goods in favour of the petitioner by staying certain conditions for such provisional release imposed by the Departmental Authorities under its order dated 26.7.2004.
Learned counsel for the parties pointed out that under such interim protection granted by this Court, the petitioners did lift the goods after fulfilling the remaining conditions imposed by the Department in its order dated 26.7.2004 in terms of the order dated 3.8.2004 passed by this Court.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in some cases, adjudication has now started for ascertaining the duty liability of the petitioner and in some cases, the same has now not commenced. Be that as it may, insofar as the present litigation is concerned, in which prayer of the petitioners was that they may be permitted provisional release of the goods and such prayer by way of interim relief was granted subject to certain conditions. Certain conditions imposed by the Department offering provisional release of the goods were stayed. This Court, thus permitted provisional release of the goods on certain conditions and by fulfilling such conditions, the petitioners also have availed of such provisional release. In that view of the matter, by virtue of such interim order, the release of the goods in favour of the petitioners and by afflux of time, to our mind, these petitions have exhausted themselves. We would not like to enter into the merits and demerits of the rival contentions at this distant point of time instead leaving it open to the Departmental Authorities to proceed further with the adjudication proceedings in accordance with law as may be permissible. It is clarified that disposal of these petitions will not in any manner affect the release of the goods already done under different interim orders passed by this court in this group of petitions.
With the above observations and clarifications, all these petitions are disposed of with liberty to apply in case of difficulty. Rule discharged.”
This petition being part of the group and involving identical issues also stands disposed of in terms of the above order. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule discharged.
(Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn) (Harsha Devani, J.)