1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 776 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3818 OF 2009 Director General Safeguards and others. ... Applicants (orig. respdts.) V/s. P.G.Foils Ltd. ... Respondent (orig. petitioner) WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 790 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4319 OF 2009 Director General Safeguards and others. ... Applicants (orig. respdts.) V/s. Advance Home and Personal Care Limited and another. ... Respondents (orig. petitioner) R.V.Desai, senior counsel with R.B.Pardeshi for the appellants/ original respondents. V.Sridharan i/b. PDS Legal for the respondents original petitioners. Ms.Sony Bhatt i/b. M.K.Ambalal & Co. for original respondent No.5 2 CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED : 11th June 2010. P.C. : Perused civil applications. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. 2. The Director General Safeguards, the original respondent No.1 has taken out these applications seeking orders directing the original petitioners to discharge duty liability in terms of High Court order dated dated 8th May, 2009. 3. The factual matrix reveal that the petitioners have filed substantive writ petitions and claimed certain interim reliefs against the present applicant and others (original respondents); wherein they have challenged preliminary findings recorded by the Director General Safeguard on 2nd February, 2009 in relation to the imports of Aluminum Flat Rolled Products and Aluminum Foil into India from China vide Customs Notification dated 23rd March, 2009. 4. The earlier Bench presided over by Justice F.I.Rebello (as he then was) was pleased to grant rule vide order dated 8th May, 2009 with interim order permitting the petitioners to import goods covered by the notification under challenge with further order directing the respondents to release the goods after taking usual bond but without bank guarantee. This order was passed 3 subject to any Rules that were to be framed by the respondents in future. In the event of such Rules, applicants were granted liberty to move for modification of the interim orders. Accordingly, those civil applications have been taken out by original respondent No.1 to seek directions against the original petitioners directing them to make payment of their liability covered under the bonds executed by them. 5. Mr.Desai, learned senior counsel, appearing for the applicants in support of his submission pointed out amendment to section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act by virtue of Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 which came into effect from 19th August, 2009; wherein section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act is amended by inserting sub-section (5A) on and from 11th May, 2002. In view thereof, the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the rules and the regulations framed thereunder, including those relating to the date of determination of the rate of duty, assessment, non-levy, short levy, refunds, interest, appeals, offences and penalties, as far as may be including its applicability to the duty chargeable were made applicable in relation to duties leviable under the Safeguards Act. Mr.Desai, thus, submits that on the date when interim orders were passed in the writ petitions, i.e. 8th May, 2009, the aforesaid amended provision was not on the statute book as such, in view of subsequent legislative change, the interim orders need to be vacated or modified. 6. Mr.Sridharan appearing for the original petitioners strongly opposed the above submissions 4 contending that the impugned notification is made operative with retrospective effect which is contrary to the law holding the field. He further submits that the interim orders were passed after hearing both parties and no subsequent event has taken place warranting modification of the said order. 7. Having heard both parties, it is clear that vide interim orders dated 8th May, 2009 the petitioners were directed to execute bonds, which the petitioners have admittedly executed. The petitioners after execution of the bonds have not imported any goods. The Revenue is sufficiently protected in view of the bonds executed by the petitioners. 8. On this backdrop, considering the parameters for the grant of interim relief, we find that the issue sought to be raised in the petitions needs consideration. The petitioners have made out prima facie case. The interim orders are already operating in their favour since May, 2009. In our considered view, ends of justice would be met by directing the petitioners to furnish additional security by way of bank guarantee to the extent of 50% of the amount covered by the bonds in addition to the bonds already executed by them, which shall also continue to operate during the pendency of the petition. With this slight modification in the interim orders dated 8th May, 2009, both civil applications stand disposed of with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)