1 WP 1565.02.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1565 OF 2002 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 530 OF 2011 M/s. Leela Scottish Lace Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioner. V/s. Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Madhur R. Baya i/b. M.G. Gawade for the Petitioner. Mr. P.S. Jetly i/b. P.C. Kaushik for the Respondents. CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & A.A. SAYED, JJ. 28 NOVEMBER 2011. P.C. :- The Petitioners have in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution sought an order for the refund of an amount of Rs. 18,10,000/- together with interest. It is an admitted position before the Court that this relief in essence is for the enforcement of an order passed by the CEGAT on 4 September 2000. By the order of the Tribunal, the order of confiscation of goods and of a penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority were set aside. 2 WP 1565.02.sxw 2. When the Petition came up on Board on 4 October 2002 and Rule was granted, a statement was made before the Division Bench on affidavit that the Department was willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- in this Court. The Petitioners were permitted to withdraw the amount against furnishing a Bank Guarantee of a Nationalised Bank or of the State Bank of India. It is common ground between Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents that this amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- represented the amount which the Petitioners were called upon to deposit by the Tribunal by its order dated 22 September 1993, on an application for waiver of pre- deposit. The First Petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- while the Second Petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Since the Tribunal allowed the Appeal finally by its order dated 4 September 2000 and set aside the confiscation and penalty, the amount which was deposited was liable to be refunded. The order of the Tribunal was challenged initially before this Court by the Commissioner of Customs. The Customs’ 3 WP 1565.02.sxw Application was dismissed by the Division Bench on 24 September 2009. The order of this Court was carried in Appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has, on 30 September 2011, dismissed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) only on the ground of delay, keeping the question of law raised in the Petition open to be agitated in an appropriate case. 3. The Notice of Motion has been taken out for return of the Bank Guarantee of Rupees Eighteen Lakhs which was furnished in pursuance of the interim order of the Division Bench dated 4 October 2002. 4. We have, on the request of the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents taken up both the Petition and the Notice of Motion on Board for hearing. From the narration of facts, it is an undisputed position before the Court that the order of the Tribunal has attained finality upon the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the Department, albeit on the question of limitation. 4 WP 1565.02.sxw 5. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the Petition and the Notice of Motion by directing that the Bank Guarantee furnished by the Petitioners shall stand discharged and shall be returned to the Petitioners. No further directions are sought in the Petition. Both the Petition and the Motion shall accordingly stand disposed of. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A.A. Sayed, J.)