INDIAN PAINT ASSOCIATION v. SHRI ARVIND SHRIVASTAVA & ORS.

since, it was submitted by Mr. Kundalia, learned senior advocate representing the alleged contemnors by placing the communication dated 18th December, 2025 that the anti dumping duty collected 3 after the date of the judgment, would be refunded subject to compliance with the procedure under Customs Act, 1962 and Rules framed thereunder, this Court, in the light of such disclosure, had directed the alleged contemnors to file affidavit of compliance. Pursuant to such direction, affidavit of compliance has been filed by the alleged contemnors in Court.

#3. Today, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the alleged contemnors has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit of compliance and the communication dated 5th December, 2025 and would submit that due to an inadvertent misinterpretation of the direction contained in the order dated 22nd September, 2025 that the customs authority had mistakenly by misinterpreting such direction had continued to collect the anti dumping duty. However, the same has been corrected by issuing the communication dated 5th December,

#2025. It is still further submitted that Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance the alleged contemnor no.1 has categorically stated in his affidavit of compliance affirmed on 3rd March 2026 that the levy of anti dumping duty was stopped promptly and a decision was taken to refund the amount collected, immediately after the contempt proceeding was initiated before this Court.

#4. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the petitioner has already in terms of the above direction applied for refund of the anti dumping duty which was collected. Such 4 applications are under process and as such, the contempt application should not be continued any further.

#5. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appears for the petitioner. Though at the very outset, he sought for an adjournment, however, considering the fact that the alleged contemnors have already filed individual affidavits in the matter and have stated that a decision has been made to refund the levy already collected, this Court has taken up hearing of this matter. Mr. Roy, by drawing attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, would submit that though the petitioner had applied for refund relying on the communication dated 18th December, 2025, however, the refund applications, which are pending for more than six months, are yet to be processed. He submits that the respondents cannot be permitted to hold on to the levy which has been illegally recovered post the order dated 22nd September 2025. In fact, the entire levy being contrary to the order is bad and should be refunded forthwith.

#6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that though after the order dated 22nd September 2025 was passed, no levy ought to have been collected as basis for collection of the anti-dumping duty stood removed. However, as submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, there has been an inadvertent misinterpretation of the direction passed by this Court. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit affirmed by the alleged 5 contemnor no.1. More fully to appreciate the same, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow: “4. I further state that in pursuance of Hon'ble Court's direction for clarification of the said Instruction dated

05.12.2025, it has been specified that the refund of the anti-dumping duty collected after Hon'ble Court's judgement dated 22.09.2025 is admissible subject to compliance with the procedure under the Customs Act, 1962 and Rules framed thereunder.

#5. I submit the concerned Customs authority continued levying anti-dumping duty solely due to an inadvertent misinterpretation of the direction that "Levy if any, collected in the meantime shall be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings." The Customs authority mistakenly interpreted this direction as that anti-dumping duty may be collected till the matter was reconsidered by the Designated Authority as per Hon'ble Court's directions. It is submitted that the same does not amount to wilful or deliberate non-compliance with the Hon'ble Court's judgment. The levy of anti- dumping duty was stopped promptly, and a decision was taken to refund the amount collected, immediately after the contempt proceedings were initiated before this Hon'ble Court.”

#7. Having regard to the above and the explanation provided and since a decision has already been taken to stop collecting anti dumping duty promptly and to refund the amount collected, and since the petitioner, availing the above decision, has already applied for refund, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served in 6 retaining the contempt application on the file especially when the alleged contemnors have been able to appropriately explained the circumstances under which they had continued to collect the anti dumping duty. Further, since it has been submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India the petitioner’s applications for refund shall be immediately processed furtherance to the statement made in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid affidavit, this Court by relying on the same and noting that the refund application shall be immediately processed, considers it appropriate not to proceed with the contempt application any further.

#8. Accordingly, the contempt application (CC/119/2025) stands disposed of, without any order as to costs. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.) R. Bose/sm