JUDGMENT
Baboo Lall Jain, J.
1. Before making this writ application the petitioner had moved another writ application being Matter No. 4403 of 1987 (Sushil Kumar Kayan v. Assistant Collector of Customs and Ors.). In the said application an interim order was made by this Court, being order dated the 18th June, 1987. The said order is, inter alia, to the effect as follows :-
“The customs authorities are directed to release the goods upon the petitioner’s paying the admitted amount to duties in cash and upon the petitioner’s furnishing a Bank Guarantee for 50% of the disputed amount of duties assessed in excess of the amount admitted by the petitioner, and a bond for the other 50%. Such Bank Guarantee and such bond shall be furnished by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs, the respondent No. 2 herein. Such Bank Guarantee and such bond shall be initially for a period of three months from date, on the undertaking of the petitioner to renew and keep it alive so long as the writ petition remains pending. The respondents are directed to produce receipt on 25.6.1987. The respondents will be at liberty to variation and/or vacation of the interim order upon notice to the petitioner. All parties to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking.”
2. Since long prior to the making of the aforesaid order, the aforesaid goods were lying and were kept in the bonded warehouse, pursuant to the request of the petitioner made some time in September, 1985. From the said bonded warehouse the petitioner could only obtain delivery of the goods on payment of customs duty and consignment release of the goods by the customs authorities even after the said order dated 18th June, 1987, was passed, the petitioner did not pay even the admitted amount of duty in cash as directed by the said order. In paragraph 10 of the petition the petitioner has alleged as follows :-
“On 30th January, 1986 your petitioner came to known that in respect of the said goods an order of seizure has been passed by the respondent No. 1 Under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said order was recorded on the register of the Warehouse where the said goods are stored.”
3. In the affidavit in opposition affirmed by Pranab Kumar Das on the 13th May, 1985 it has been stated, inter alia as follows:
“On perusal of the records of the Customs House it is found that no notice Under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 was ever served in respect of the subject goods but only in the Bond stock register Book No. 1. It has been endorsed by the Appraiser S.I.B.’s on not to be delivered without the knowledge of the S.I.B.’s on 30th January, 1986. Long after that the Bill of Entry was assessed and the question of seizure or not giving delivery does not arise. Further, before payment of duty no release order is ever given from the Bond in the case of even normal goods stored in the bonded warehouse. In the case of the goods stored in the bonded warehouse the importers pay duty on the assessed Bill of Entry and take release order from the Customs Appraiser concerned. In this case the Bill of Entry has been assessed long before and delivered to the importer on 9th July, 1987 in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Court dated 18th June, 1987 for payment of duty. The importer have not paid duty before presentation of instant writ application.”
3. The respondents are denying that there was any order Under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The endorsement on the bond stock register was recorded by the Appraiser attached to the Special Investigation Bench on 30.1.1986, to the effect ‘not to be delivered without the knowledge of S.I.B.’. Thereafter, according to the respondents Nos. 1,2 & 3 the Bill of Entry was assessed in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 18.6.1987 and the reassessed Bill of Entry was made over on the 9th July, 1987, for taking release of the subject goods on payment of duties and execution of Bank Guarantee and Bond. In my opinion, after the order dated the 18th June, 1987 was passed by this Court it was for the petitioner to comply with requirements of the said order before asking the Customs Department for the delivery of the goods. The petitioner even till today has not paid the admitted amount of customs duty, and the petitioner without due compliance with all the requirements of the said order dated the 18th June, 1987 could not possible be entitled to demand delivery of the goods.
4. So far as the Warehousing Corporation is concerned, of course, on the 30th January, 1986, it could not be expected to deliver the goods without the knowledge of the appropriate Customs authorities. I do not think that the said note in the warehousing book would or could have been operative, inspite of the order of this Court in the said writ petition being Matter No. 4403 of 1987. All that the petitioner had to do was to comply with the requirements of the said order dated the 18th June, 1987 and to demand from the Customs authorities the delivery of the goods. The contingency has not arisen even till today. On the 25th April, 1988 the petitioner filed the second writ petition in which the interim order dated the 25th April, 1988 was passed by Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. The petitioner has not complied with the requirements of that order either. Since there was no order Under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the whole application of the petitioner is misconceived. The endorsement in the stock register does not amount to seizure of goods and at least it was by way of precautionary measure. As soon as the duty was assessed, the said order or endorsement became inoperative. In any event the said endorsement and/or order and/or direction lost its force after the order was passed by this Court on 18.6.1987.
5. The endorsement dated 30th January, 1986 was to the following effect ‘Not to be delivered without the knowledge of the Assistant Collector, SIB’. All that was required to be done was that the West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation was to bring it to the knowledge of the Assistant Collector S.I.B. After bringing it to the knowledge of the Assistant Collector S.I.B. the West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation could deliver the goods. Since the order dated 18th June, 1987 was already on goods, I do not think that the Assistant Collector, S.I.B. could pass any further order which could in any manner affect the force or effect of the order of this Court dated 18th June 1987. In my opinion, the endorsement in the Warehousing Register is in itself of no effect except that the matter was to be brought to the knowledge of the authority concerned. The goods which lie in the Bonded Warehouse cannot even otherwise be delivered without the knowledge or approval of the Customs authorities and if the matter was to be brought to the notice of the particular Officer that in itself, in my opinion, did not and could not amount to an order of seizure Under Section 110 of the Customs Act as alleged by the petitioner. Furthermore and in any event, in my opinion, the order made by this Court in Matter No.4403 of 1987 was binding on the Customs Authorities and the Customs authorities could not be heard to urge to the contrary or to rely on any order made by any of their officers priore to the Gate of the order passed by this Court so as to dispute the binding authority of the order dated 18.6.1988. In that view of the matter, I do not find that there is any substance in prayers (a), (c) and (g) of the Writ Petition. So far as the other prayers relating to the release of the goods without payment of the Warehous ing charges is concerned, the same were not pressed and in my opinion, the same are without substance inasmuch as the goods were pledged in the Warehouse, at the request of the petitioner in or about September, 1985. The petitioner has not yet paid the Customs duty in respect of the said goods nor has he complied with the terms of the said order dated 18th June, 1987, until today. In that view of the matter the petitioner never became entitled to take delivery of the goods from the said Warehouse. It was for the petitioner to pay the Customs duty and to get the goods released. After the order dated 18th June, 1987 was passed, it was again for the petitioner to comply with all the requirements of the said order and then to ask for the release of the goods. But he did not comply with the necessary requirements at any point of time, either before or after the passing of the said order dated 18th June, 1987. In that view of the matter it is the petitioner who is liable to pay the Warehousing charges. That the Warehousing Corporation is entitled to demand the payment of its charges was really not disputed by the petitioner at the time of the arguments on behalf of the petitioner pursuant to the application made on or about 7th September, 1988. The petitioner, however, wanted this Court to direct the Customs authorities either to pay the warehousing charges and/or to make arrangements for the payment of the Warehousing charges.
6. In this case and at the moment, I do not find that there are any grounds for making any such order against the Customs authorities. I am making it quite clear, that I have not yet gone into the merits of any of the other controversies as between the parties in Matter No. 4403 of 1987 (Sushil Kumar Kayan v. Assistant Collector of Customs and Ors.) and none of the observations made in these proceedings are to affect the respective rights or contentions of the parties in the said Matter No. 4403 of 1987.
7. The application is thus dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.