Judgement

VENKATARAMIAH, J. : - These appeals by special leave are filed against the Order dated 26-6-1986 passed in Appeal No. 512 of 1986 in Writ Petition No. 1007 of 1986 and the Order dated 26-6-1986 in Appeal No. 535 of 1986 in Writ Petition No. 1424 of 1986 of the High Court of Bombay. Since these two are connected matters, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts of these two cases are these. The appellant in both these appeals is the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the Port Trust) and respondent 1 in both these appeals is a partnership firm by name M/s. Jai Hind Oil Mills Company. Respondent 1 imported 5 consignments of propylene of 10 metric tons each in January, 1986 by S. S. Maribor. The general landing date of the said consignments was 20th January, 1986 and the last free date in respect of them was 23rd January, 1986. Thereafter the said consignments were incurring demurrage. The bills of entry were submitted by respondent 1 to the customs authorities in the same month. Disputes arose between respondent 1 and the customs authorities with regard to the basic customs duty payable in excess of 32.50% (as goods were imported from the Republic of Korea which was a developing country), with regard to loading the assessable value with customs duty for calculation of the additional duty and with regard to loading the CIF value with the landing charges. Not being satisfied with the contentions of the customs authorities respondent I filed a writ petition in Writ Petition No. 122 of 1986 for the issue of certain directions to the customs authorities with regard to the levy of customs duty. In that Writ Petition on January 21, 1986 the High Court passed an interim order which directed the customs authorities not to insist on payment of the customs duty in dispute pending hearing and disposal of the writ petition on respondent 1 furnishing a bank guarantee to the extent of the 90 per cent of the disputed amount of duty in respect of one item and 100 per cent of the disputed amount of duty in respect of two other items in favour of the Collector of Customs. Thereafter some correspondence ensued between respondent 1 and the customs authorities in connection with the description of the above goods. It would appear that while the bill of lading and the invoice described the goods as propylene the marks on the consignments indicated that they contained polypropylene. Respondent I was asked to explain the discrepancy by the customs authorities. There was also some dispute raised as regards the invoice price. Respondent 1 could not, however, clear the goods from the Port of Bombay. Thereafter respondent I filed another Writ Petition No. 519 of 1986 for the issue of a direction to the customs authorities to permit it to clear the consignments. On April 2, 1986 the learned single Judge of the High Court of Bombay who heard the said Writ Petition passed an order allowing respondent 1 to clear the consignments on furnishing an import trade control bond for the value of the consignments calculated at the rate of US $ 735 per metric ton and furnishing a bank guarantee of a nationalised bank in favour of the Collector Of Customs. Bombay, to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court, Bombay, for a sum equivalent to the difference in the value between US $ 715 and US $ 735 per metric ton without prejudice to the rights and contentions of respondent 1. The said order provided that the customs authorities could continue their investigation and adjudicate upon the duty payable by respondent 1. On the basis of the above order respondent 1 was allowed to withdraw the Writ Petition with liaberty to file a fresh petition, if required. Since there was a delay in the clearance of the consignments in question and respondent 1 had become liable to pay demurrage to the Port Trust, respondent 1 addressed a letter to the Collector of Customs, Bombay, asking him to issue a detenti