IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 26.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition Nos.10088 and 10089 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 M/s.Olympic Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietrix, Mrs.Brijbalan Jain 166/1, 3rd Floor, Sadar Patrappa Road, Bangalore – 560 002. .. Petitioner in W.P.No.10088/2011 M/s.Olympic Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietrix, Mrs.Brijbalan Jain 166/1, 3rd Floor, Sadar Patrappa Road, Bangalore – 560 002. .. Petitioner in W.P.No.10089/2011 Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Gopalakrishnan Iyer Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. .. Respondent in both W.Ps Prayer in W.P.No.10088 of 2011: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to complete the investigation in respect of the anti-dumping said to have been non-levied on the goods imported vide bills of entry nos.310251, dated 14.09.2009, 335214 dated 15.10.2009, 425819, dated 04.02.2010 and 600974, dated 18.08.2010, within a reasonable time and not to insist upon deposit of any sum representing any duty before adjudication of the case as per Customs Act. Prayer in W.P.No.10089 of 2011: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to complete the investigation in respect of the anti-dumping said to have been non-levied on the goods imported vide bills of entry nos.407822, dated 13.01.2010 and 738271, dated 04.01.2011, within a reasonable time and not to insist upon deposit of any sum representing any duty before adjudication of the case as per Customs Act. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy Senior Counsel for Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar, CGSC COMMON ORDER Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that no duty demand will be made against the petitioners, till final orders are passed in the adjudication proceedings. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners would co-operate, fully, in the adjudication process. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, since, no further orders are necessary, the writ petitions stand closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar cse To The Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Gopalakrishnan Iyer Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. 1 cc To Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate, SR.28645 1 cc To Mr.S.Udayakumar, Advocate, SR.28651 Writ Petition Nos.10088 and 10089 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 KGK (CO) RH (19.5.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/