hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2732 OF 1999 Sitara Shipping Ltd. ... Petitioners Versus The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Manoj R. Khatri for the Petitioner. Mr. U.J. Makhija, Sr. Counsel i/by M/s. Mulla & Mu7lla & C.B. & C. for R. NO. 1. Mr. R.V. Desai, Sr. Counsel with Mrs. S.V. Bharucha for R. No. 2. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : JULY 30, 2009 P.C. The Petitioners are the owners of 17 containers which are listed in Annexure A to the Petition. These containers were allotted to Respondent No. 3 now under liquidation. Though the containers were stuffed by Respondent No. 3, the same were not exported as in the meantime the Customs Authorities had intervened. The containers were earlier in the custody of Respondent No. 1. It appears that they have been subsequently shifted in the Customs Ware House. On 6th Jan. 1998 the Commissioner of Customs wrote to the Manager, Container Cell with a copy addressed to the Petitioners herein that in Nov. 1997 the goods were confiscated under section 113 of the Customs Act and penalties were imposed and duty demanded from the parties concerned. The exporters were also given an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine which was not exercised by the exporter concerned as of date. The letter further sets out that the Petitioners had been advised to arrange for de-stuffing of the goods. Considering the above facts and that the goods have been confiscated and the communication dated 6th Jan. 1998, it would be clear that t he customs authorities have no objection to the containers being released in favour of the Petitioners. The Port Trust, Respondent No. 3 in respect of their dues have already filed a suit against the Petitioners and Respondent No. 3 now in liquidation which is pending. Considering the above, the preset petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions : (1) The Respondent No. 2 within twelve weeks from today is directed to de-stuff the containers. (2) On the containers being de-stuffed, it will be open to the Petitioners to remove the containers. This will be subject to any dues which the Petitioners may have to pay to Respondent No. 2 if any. The entire exercise to be completed within two weeks of destuffing. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)