IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A.NO. OF 2005

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 25761/2004

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. M/s Trison International Trading

Proprietorship concern, Having
its office at F-19/27, Sector VII,
Rohini, Delhi 110 085.

2. Shri Zahoor Shah,

Son of Haji Ghulam Nabi Shah Watali,
Resident of Bunzalla,
Srinagar,
Sole Proprietor of Petitioner No.1 …Petitioner

Versus

1. The Commissioner of Customs,

SIIB New Customs House,
Near I.G.I., Airport, Palam,
New Delhi.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs,

SIIB/SVB, New Customs House,
Near I.G.I. Airport, Palam,
New Delhi …Respondents/Contemnor

3. Union of India Through its Secretary,

Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi.

AN APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION

To,

The Hon’ble the Chief of India and His Companion Justice of

the Supreme Court of India.

The humble Petition of the Petitioner above

named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner had filed a special leave petition against the
judgement and order dated 13 th August, 2004 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM No.9324 of 2004 in WP (C)
No.1001/2001.

2. That the issue in the present special leave petition is as follows:-

(a) The Petitioners herein entered into a contract with M/s Al Taj Hiz
General Trading Est., P.O. Box No.51268, Dubai, U.A.E.
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Seller’) on 20.2.1996 for the
purchase of Copper dross, copper cable scrap of approx. 7 Tones
and 3 Tones respectively. In accordance with the terms and
conditions of the said contract, the delivery of the goods was to be
made within 30 days from the date of the contract. The contract
also specified the price, the payment terms and the name of the
buyer’s Bankers.

(b) That the goods in question were shipped by the sellers on

22.3.1996 prior to the issuance of below mentioned Notification.

(c) That the Petitioners submit that it would be relevant to state here
that the import of the Copper Dross/Scrap was freely permitted as
on O.G.L. item under the Export-Import Policy, 1992-97 upto
25.3.1996. However vide Notification dated 25.3.1996 the Central
Government in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the
Foreign Trade 9Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (No.22/1992)
read with para 3 of the Export Import Policy, 1992-97 amended the
Export & Import Policy 9Revised Edition March, 1996) and as per
the Annexure to the said Notification from 25.3.1996 onwards the
import of customs waste and scrap was deleted from the Open
General Licence but the said Notification was to operate
prospectively and all the firm commitments prior to 25.3.1996 were
not to be affected by the said Notification.
(d) That the Petitioners upon receiving the bill of lading, invoice and
other documents through heir Bankers on 9.4.1996 and made
necessary payment of the consignment through their Bankers. The
documents received from the Bank were duly handed over by the
Petitioners to their Clearing Agent sometime prior to 20.4.1996 for
taking necessary steps to clear the imported goods.

(e) That the Clearing Agent fulfilled all the formalities as per the
Custom Act and Rules and filed the Bill of Entry along with all the
necessary documents before concerned officer on 20.4.1996 for
inspecting the goods.

(f) The concerned Officer i.e. the appraiser inspected the goods on
30.4.1996 and after fully satisfying himself with regard to nature
and genuineness of the goods returned the documents for
necessary endorsement and clearance to Respondent No.3.

(g) That the Petitioners also prepared the Bank draft for the sum of
Rs.10,16,028/- on 2.5.1996 for payment of the Customs duty.

That the requisite payment towards the said consignment

amounting to US Dollars 11,960,50 was released by the Petitioner’s
Bankers to the Sellers in Dubai.

(h) That instead of releasing the consignment, the Respondent No.3

under a mis-apprehension raided office of the Petitioners on
8.5.1996. This came as a shock to the Petitioners. However, no
incriminating documents were found by the raiding party. A
panchnama of the documents were found by the raiding party. A
panchanama of the documents were prepared wherein it was
clearly mentioned that nothing incriminatory except a file containing
pages 1 to 11 was resumed by the Customs Officers. The said file
only contained few photographs of the Petitioner No.2. Copy of the
Bill of Lading Agreement, envelope etc.
(i) That instead of releasing the consignment, Petitioners were served
with a Summon on 10.5.1996 to appear before the Respondent
No.3 on 17.5.1996 at 11 A.M.

(j) The Petitioners accordingly appeared on 17.5.1996 and a

statement of Petitioner No.2 was recorded by Respondent No.2.
Thereafter, Respondent No.3 without any reason was illegally
withholding clearance of consignment despite the Petitioners
having repeatedly making representations to him to release the
consignment.

(k) That it will be relevant to state here that the sellers wrote a letter to
the Petitioner on 13.5.1996 clarifying the position regarding the
date of invoice and also, inter alia, stating that if there is problem in
clearing, the Petitioners should forward container to the sellers’
client in China or the container be returned to the seller itself.
Alongwith the letter the seller also annexed Certificate regarding
the container containing the receipt of the material from the seller.

(l) Government of India through its Joint Director Foreign Trade, on

17.5.1996 issued a letter on the request of All India Importers
Association, clarifying that the import of non-ferrous scrap shipped
within 45 days of the announcement of the new policy whose
irrevocable letter of credit was not established prior to 25.3.1996 is
absolutely legal and such import is permitted a firm agreement for
and import was entered into with the Overseas Exporters prior to
25.3.1996 subject to the submissions of the documentary evidence
and satisfaction of the customs authorities.

(m) That the Petitioners received another letter dated 25.3.1996 from
the I.A.L. Container Lines, U.K. who had supplied the Container in
which the goods have been shipped. IN the said letter, the I.A.L.
containers stated that if the delivery of the goods is not taken as
per the letter, they will not permit further detention of their container
and will order de-shipping of the goods.
(n) The Petitioners on 27.6.1996 requested the Respondent No.3 to
release the consignment and/or expedite the matter as they are
suffering losses in the shape of demurrage and detention charges
per day.

(o) That once again on 11.7.1996, the Petitioners requested

Respondent No.3 to expedite the release of the goods to avoid any
further loss.

That the Government of India on 11.7.1996 issued a Notification

No.4 (Re-96/92-72 in exercise of powers under S.5 of the Foreign
Trade (A & R) Act, 1992 (22/1992) and notified the amendment in
the I.T.C. (HS) Classification of Export and Import items published
on 25.3.1996.

(p) That the Petitioners feeling absolutely frustrated and helpless once
again sent a demand for justice to the respondent no.3 on
15.7.1996 and requested him to release the consignment even on
appropriate bank guarantee to avoid any further losses on account
of damages, detention etc. No reply to any of the representations of
the petitioners has been received from respondents uptil date and
the Petitioners’ clearance is being withheld by respondents herein
without any authority of law.

(q) The Petitioners deem it important to mention here that a circular

was issued by the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade on
5.8.1996 clarifying the Notification dated 11.7.1996 and stating that
since the Notification dated 11.7.1996 identified the items on the
basis of code and there were hazardous non-ferrus scrap which
can be freely imported it has been decided to extend the provision
of the Notification in question in respect of the goods which have
arrived prior to 11th July, 1996, but not cleared so far by the customs
so long as such goods come under the relevant I.S.L.I. Code
mentioned in the Notification.

(r) The Petitioners left with no other alternative remedy filed a Writ
Petition being C.W.P.No.3210 of 1996. The said Writ Petition was
 heard and after hearing the Hon’ble Court was pleased to dispose
of the Writ Petition on the very first date while directing the
Petitioner as follows:-

“In this view of the matter we hereby direct that on

petitioner’s furnishing bank guarantee to the satisfaction of
Respondent No.3 for the differential amount of Customs
duty, which shall be intimated to the Petitioner by the
Respondents within two days, the consignment in question
shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. The petition
stands disposed of the above terms.”

(r) The Respondent filed another Application bearing CM No.6101 of

1996 under Section 151 CPC for modification of the order dated
22nd August, 1996 passed by this Hon’ble Court, the
aforementioned writ petition. The said Application came up for
hearing before the Hon’ble High Court on 26 th September, 1996
when upon a request being made by counsel for the Respondents,
the matter was adjourned to 29 th November, 1996. No orders
thereafter were passed on the said Application.

(t) The Petitioners filed another Application bearing CM No.6852 of

1996 under Section 151 CPC for directions to the effect that
Respondents be directed to release the Petitioners’ consignment in
question forthwith and/or hear the Application filed by the
Respondents under Section 151 CPC for modification of order
dated 22nd August, 1996. The said Application came up for hearing
on 18th October, 1996 when the following order was passed by this
Hon’ble Court:

“Mr. K.C. Mittal, counsel for respondent is not present

Request for adjournment is made. The difficulty, however, is
that pending the clearance of the goods, amount of
demurrage, is mounting up. According to Mr. Dutta, learned
counsel for the petitioner the demurrage is not payable by
the petitioner Learned Counsel, however, suggests that in
order to save the levy of further demurrage charges the
petitioner, without prejudice to its right and contentions, at
this stage would pay the same and in the event of this Court
later holding that the demurrage charges are not payable by
the petitioner, necessary direction may be issued for
petitioner being reimbursed for the demurrage charges
which he will now pay. The suggestion is just and
reasonable.

Thus, having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we

accede to the request of the petitioner that goods be shifted
to a place to be provided by the petitioners, on petitioner
making payment of demurrage charges provisionally in
terms stated above, the goods be shifted to the place
provided by the petitioner. The goods, however, would
remain under the lock and key of the Custom authorities and
the petitioner would have no right to use the same. The
Custom authorities would issue the requisite detention
certificate. The petitioner shall inform the place to be
provided for shifting of the goods to Customs Authorities.
The petitioner will also make arrangement for shifting of
goods which would be shifted under the supervision of the
Custom authorities and will remain under the lock and key of
the custom authorities.

We permit the petitioner to file an application seeking

amendment of the writ petition and for impleading Container
Corporation of India or any other respondent as party and
placing on record the grounds in support of the contention
that the demurrage charges are not payable by the
petitioner. We make it clear that goods will be shifted only
after the deposit of the demurrage charges by the petitioner
in terms of this order. List the petition for further proceedings
on 26.11.96. Copy of the order be given Dasti to the counsel
for the parties.
 The aforesaid Application came up for hearing again on 10 th
December,1996 when the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass
the following order:

While on one hand Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Counsel for the petitioner
submits that for non action of the Customs Department for
sending the file to ICD, the demurrage charges are not being
accepted with the result that the goods are not being shifted
to private warehouse in terms of the order dated 18.10.1996
in spite of the fact that the Petitioner has contacted the
Officers of the Custom Department a number of times, on
the other hand Mr. K.C Mittal submit that goods are already
under shifting and must have been shifted by now. Let Mr.
Mittal make a positive statement on the next date of hearing
that goods have been shifted.

(u) As permission was granted by this Hon’ble Court to the Petitioner

vide order dated 18th October, 1996 to amend the writ petition while
impleading Container Corporation of India as Respondent, the
Petitioners filed CM No.7653 of 1996 under Section 151 CPC
seeking amendment in the writ petition No.3210 of 1996 on 20 th
November, 1996. The aforesaid Application came up for hearing
before this Hon’ble Court on 26 th November, 1996 when this
Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow the said Application by passing
the following order:

“There is no opposition to this application. Accordingly, the

amendment, as prayed in the application, is allowed, and
Container Corporation of India is impleaded as Respondent
No.4 in the Writ Petition. The amended petition filed is taken
on record. CM is disposed of accordingly.”

As the order dated 18th October, 1996 was not complied with by the
Respondents, the Petitioners filed CM No.8106 of 1996 under
Section 151 CPC seeking the following directions against the
Respondents:
 “1. Direct Respondent No.3 to send the complete file to ICD at
Tughlakabad, Delhi forthwith;

2. Direct Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to intimate the same;

3. Direct the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to forthwith implement

the order dated 18th October, 1996”;

(v) The aforesaid Application along with CM No.6852 of 1996 were

heard by this Hon’ble Court on 13 th December, 1996 and the
following order came to be passed:

“Learned Counsel for the Parties submit that the goods have
been shifted and demurrage charges have been paid by the
Petitioner.”

(w) In the meanwhile, on 12th December, 1996 the Respondents issued

show cause notice to the Petitioners while the aforesaid writ petition
was still pending before the Hon’ble High Court as to why the
goods consignment in question be not confiscated. Feeling
aggrieved by the said show cause notice, the Petitioners filed CM
No.394 of 1997 seeking amendment of the writ petition to enable
the Petitioner to challenge the said show cause notice. The said
Application was heard by this Hon’ble Court on 18 th February, 1997
when the following order was passed:

“Mr. Mittal prays for time to file reply to this application. Let it
be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed
within two weeks, thereafter.”

(x) Thereafter, the said Application was heard again on 3 rd September,

1997 when the following order was passed by this Hon’ble Court:

“This is an application seeking amendment in the Writ

Petition which has been filed subsequent to issuance of
show cause notice on 12.12.1996.
(y) The Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that reply to show
cause notice has been filed in compliance with order of the Court
dated 11.4.1997.

The application for amendment is allowed and amended

petition is taken on record.”

(z) The Petitioners filed an Application bearing CM No.1830 of 1997

under Section 151 CPC seeking ad-interim ex-parte stay of the
show cause notice dated 12 th December, 1996 and letter dated 11 th
February, 1997. The said Application came up for hearing on 11 th
March, 1997 when the Respondents were restrained from passing
the final order in respect of the show cause notice dated 12 th
December, 1996. This Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass the
following order:

“Notice for 11th April, 1997, the date already fixed.

Respondents are restrained from making final order till the
next date of hearing pursuant to show cause notice dated
12th December, 1996.”

(aa) It is further submitted that on 20 th December 2000 when the

C.W.P.No.3210 of 1996 came up for hearing before this Hon’ble
Court, the Hon’ble Court observed that the Show Cause Notice
should be decided first prior to the adjudication of the above said
Writ Petition and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass the
following Orders:

“In partial modification of the order dated 11.4.97 we permit

the respondent to pass final order sin the adjudication
matter. This shall be without prejudice to the claims involved
in the present writ petition. The adjudication shall be done
by the end of January, 2001. To avoid inordinate delay the
petitioner shall appear before the concerned authority
without any further notice on 05.01.2001. This adjudication
shall be in respect of the Show Cause Notice dated
12.12.96.”
 As per the direction of this Hon’ble Court given in
C.W.P.No.3210 of 1996 the Petitioner availed the opportunity
of personal hearing and explained the entire case to the
concerned officer i.e. The Additional Commissioner
(Adjudication) where after the concerned officer reserved its
Final Order in respect of Show Cause Notice dated 12 th
December, 1996.

(ab) Thereafter on 19th January 2001, The Additional Commissioner

(Adjudication) was pleased to pass the final Order. The operative
portion of the said Order reads as under:-

“(i) Goods imported vide B/E 104011 dated 20.4.96

belonged to M/s Trison International Trading and it was a
clerical mistake when the word Trading was omitted. The
IEC Code No. M/s Trison International Trading is valid and
no distinction should be made between M/s Trison
International and M/s Trison International Trading.

(ii) Copper Cable scrap weighing 2.330 metric ton and

copper dross weighing 6.820 metric ton required a specific
import licence as the contract was not valid in terms of DGFT
clarifications. In the absence of import licence, goods are
confiscated for ITC violation under Section 111(d) of the
Customs Act., 1962. However, the party is allowed to
redeem the goods on a fine of Rs.2 lac. I also impose a
penalty of Rs.25,000/- on M/s. Trison International Trading
and Rs.25,000/- on Shri Zahoor Ahmed. This is addition to
the duty involved, if any paid already.

(iii) The penal proceedings against M/s Maltraon Shipping

Agencies are dropped.”

(ac) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19 TH January, 2001

the Petitioner filed Writ Petition bearing CWP No.1001/2001 which
came up for hearing on 19 th March, 2001 when in the Hon’ble Court
was pleased to passed the following Order:-
 “By order dated 20th December, 2000 passed in CWP
No.3210/96. We had directed the departmental authorities
to pass final order in the matter of adjudication. Same has
been passed and is the subject matter of challenge in this
petition. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that
the same is available to be assailed in an appropriate
remedy before the statutory authorities. Learned Counsel
for the petitioner stated that the adjudication is based on
materials, which did not form part of the show-cause notice.
This factual aspect can be gone into in detail by the
appellate authority. It is agreed by learned counsel for the
parties that an early adjudication of the entire controversy by
the appellate authority would be in, the interest of the
parties. The being the position. We direct that in case the
petitioner files an appeal before the appropriate authority
within two weeks from today, same shall be disposed of
within a month from the date of its filing. It goes without
saying that the petitioner shall cooperate for early disposal of
the appeal. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the question of pre-deposit may arise. The
Appellate Authority, while dealing with that question, shall
take notice of various orders passed by this Court and the
interim direction given in CWP 3210/96.

CWP 1001/01 is disposed of accordingly.”

That after dealing with the aforesaid writ petition, the Hon’ble High
Court in the other connected writ petition which was filed prior to
the aforesaid writ petition, viz., WP No.3210 of 1996, was pleased
to pass the following order:

“CWP 3210/1996 & CM 6852/96

Though normally, in view of the disposal of CWP 1001/2001,

this petition would have become infructuous but we find that
the question of demurrage is involved. Therefore, this
petition shall be heard only on that question….”
 At this stage it is pertinent to mentioned that on the covering page
of the order dated 19 th January, 2001 passed by the Additional
Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) it was mentioned that the
appeal against the said order could be filed before the Customs,
Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.

(ad) Pursuant to the aforesaid direction passed in CWP No.1001/2001

the Petitioner bonafidely preferred an appeal within the time
granted by this Hon’ble Court before the Hon’ble CEGAT, New
Delhi which came to be registered as C-117/01/532/2001.

(ae) That the aforesaid Appeal came up for hearing before the Hon’ble
CEGAT wherein it was observed that under provisions of Customs
Act., an Appeal could be filed before the Commissioner of Customs
and that no Appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal and
accordingly the Petitioner were advised to withdraw the Appeal and
to file the same before the Hon’ble Commissionerate.

(af) The Petitioner filed an Appeal before the Hon’ble Commissionerate

under the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act., 1962.

(ag) The learned Commissionerate without hearing the appeal on merit

was pleased to dismissed the same on the ground of time barred
as it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

(ah) The Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed a CM

No.11699/2001 in CWP No.3210 of 1996 still pending of
adjudication before this Hon’ble Court. The said CM came up for
hearing on 17.12.2002, however the same was withdrawn by the
Petitioner with a liberty to move an appropriate Application in CWP
No.1001/2001.

(ai) The Petitioner filed CM No.2040/2003 in CWP No.1001/2001 which

ultimately came up for hearing on 10.2.2004.
(aj) After arguing for some time counsel for the Petitioner sought
permission withdraw the Application with a view to move the
Appellate Tribunal.

Subsequently Petitioner filed an Appeal bearing Appeal No.C-264 &

C/265/2004 before the CEGAT and the same is pending
adjudication. It is here clarified that when the aforesaid Appeal first
time came up for hearing the Hon’ble Tribunal sought clarification
with regard to whether the time spent before the Hon’ble High Court
needs to be excluded.

(ak) Subsequently on 13th August, 2004 the CM No.9324/2004 in CWP

No.1001/2002 filed by the Petitioner with regard to the aforesaid
clarification came up for hearing wherein the Hon’ble Court was
pleased to disposed of the aforesaid CM while observing that since
1996 the petitioner/applicant is avoiding the payment of duty and is
approaching one forum or the other without bothering about the
jurisdiction of the forum, we direct that if the petitioner deposits in
cash the amount demanded with interest @ 10% within a period of
four weeks, the appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals shall
stand restored and the Commissioner shall hear the appeal on
merits and shall decide the same.

3. The Petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred the present special leave

Petition before this Hon’ble Court. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) was
heard by this Hon’ble Court on 3.1.2005. Upon hearing the submission of
the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this Hon’ble Court dismissed the
aforesaid special leave petition, with the following observation:-

“The learned senior counsel for the Petitioners states that by

virtue of the direction contained in para 2 of the impugned
judgement of the High Court the Petitioners are liable to
deposit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of duty, but it is
not clear from the impugned judgement of the High Court as
to on what amount the interest is to be calculated.
 So far as the amount of duty is concerned, the learned
senior counsel for the Petitioners has very fairly stated that
the Petitioners do not object to payment of duty subject to
final determination by the appellate authority. If that be so,
we clarify that the Petitioners may deposit the amount of
duty with interest calculated at the rate of 10 per cent per
annum on the amount of duty as aforesaid within a period of
four weeks from today and on compliance the appeal before
the Commissioner of Appeals shall stand restored and heard
and decided on merits. The amount will be treated as
deposit by the petitioners available for disbursement in terms
of the judgement in appeal.

Subject to that clarification, the special leave petition is

dismissed“.

The true copy of the abovesaid order dated 3.1.2005 passed by this
Hon’ble Court in SLP (C) No.25761/2004 is marked and annexed herewith
as Annexure-A/1.

4. In the view to comply with the order dated 3.1.2005 passed by this
Hon’ble Court in SLP (C) No.25761/2004 the Petitioner sent the
representation to the respondent requesting him to calculate duty amount
as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court. Though the representation
dated 25.1.2005 was duly acknowledged by the respondent on 28.1.2005,
the respondent did not assess the amount of duty and interest thereof. A
true copy of the letter/representation dated 25.1.2005 is annexed hereto at
Annexure-A/2.

5. Since the respondent did not furnish the duty amount to the
petitioner, the Petitioner was again constraint to send another
representation dated 4/2/2005 to the respondent interalia requesting him
to assess the customs duly and interest expediently so that same could be
deposited. The in ordinate delay on the part of the respondent in
assessing the custom duty and interest is causing grave and irreparable
loss to the petitioner. The true copy of the letter/representation dated
4.2.2005 sent by the Applicant is marked and annexed herewith as
Annexure-A/3.
 The cavalier attitude of the respondent is clear violation of the order
passed by this Hon’ble Court in SLP (C) No.25761/2004. The non
compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court is only due to Respondents
inaction.

Administration of justice cannot be effective unless respected by

one and all. The present case is clear and beyond reasonable doubt an
example of “we do not care”, as is evidenced from the above.

PRAYER

In the circumstances explained above, it is most respectfully prayed

that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) Issue appropriate Directions to the Respondents to immediately

calculate the duty with interest @ 10% per annum on the amount of
duty, to enable the Petitioner to deposit the same.

(b) Extend the time for deposit in terms of the order dated 3.1.2005.

(c) pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Drawn by: Filed by:

S. Beno Bencigar (R. NEDUMARAN)

Advocate ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER-
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A.NO. OF 2005
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 25761/2004

IN THE MATTER OF:

Trison International Trading & Anr. ... Petitioners

VERSUS

The commissioner of customs & Ors. ... Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Zahoor Shah aged about 52 years son Late Md. Gulam Navi Shah,
Resident of H. No. 20, NRI Complex Madakari New Delhi , do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as under :

1. I say that I am Proprietor of the Petitioner company in

the above mentioned Petition for Directions and am therefore
competent to file this Affidavit in this case in support of the
present.

2. That I am fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the present

case and I am, therefore also competent to swear the present Affidavit.

3. That I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying

Petition for Direction, and state that the same are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

4 That all the documents marked and annexed to the Petition for
Direction are true copies of their respective originals.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this the th day of April, 2005 that the contents of
the above Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief and that nothing false has been stated therein or material
concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 INDEX

S. PARTICULARS Page
No. No.

1. An application for direction with Affidavit. 1 – 17

2. ANNEXURE-A/1
The true copy of the order dated 3.1.2005 passed by 18 – 19
this Hon’ble Court in SLP (C) No.25761/2004.

3. ANNEXURE-A/2
A true copy of the letter/representation dated 20
25.1.2005.

4. ANNEXURE-A/3
The true copy of the letter/representation dated 21
4.2.2005 sent by the Applicant.

Filed by:

(R. NEDUMARAN)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A.NO. OF 2005
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 25761/2004

IN THE MATTER OF:

Trison International Trading & Anr. ... Petitioners

VERSUS

The commissioner of customs & Ors. ... Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mangal Dhawan aged about ____ years son Late Shri Sohan Lal
Dhawan, Resident of F-19/27, Sector VIII, Rohini, Delhi – 110085, do
hereby solemnly affirm and state as under :

1. That I am the paeroakar of Petitioner Firm in the above

mentioned matter and I am fully competent to file the
accompanying Application for Direction and to swear the
present Affidavit in support.

2. That I am fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the

present case and I am, therefore also competent to swear the
present Affidavit.

3. That I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying

Application for Direction, and state that the same are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

4 That all the documents marked and annexed to the Application

for Direction are true copies of their respective originals.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this the th day of April, 2005 that the contents of
the above Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief and that nothing false has been stated therein or material
concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT