TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the writ petitioner has come up to this Court for a direction on the respondents to grant clearance of the subject goods comprising 18. 75 Metric Tonnes presently lying in West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation upon payment of the assessed customs duty thereon and for other incidental reliefs. ( 2 ) IN or about 1986, the writ petitioner, D. K. Corporation, which is a sole proprietary concern having its business at 72/74 Kika Street, Gulalwadi, Bombay-400 004, entered into an agreement with one M/s. Enfield Steel Corporation of London, U. K. to purchase 500 Metric Tonnes of stainless steel Mother Tubes/pipes. The shipment of the subject goods commenced from July, 1986 and part-shipment and transhipment were allowed and permitted. According to the writ petitioner for the purpose of and in connection with the importation of the subject goods under the contract dated 22nd January, 1986, the writ petitioner acquired valuable rights and benefits of the R. E. P. Licence from time to time. Pursuant to and in terms of the said contract, the foreign seller shipped the first consignment containing three bundles of stainless steel Seamless Mother Tubes containing a gross weight of 3,420 kgs under a bill of Lading dated 23rd July, 1986 for the port of discharge at Calcutta. The Customs Authorities, however, were not willing to release the said consignments as also the future consignments under the said contract dated 22nd January, 1986 inasmuch as the Customs Authorities were seeking to include freight and other expenses in the assessable value of the imported goods for the purpose of assessment of the customs duty. The writ petitioner moved a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Customs Authorities in November, 1986. On 5th December, 1986, a learned Judge of this Court by an order of the said date directed the Customs Authorities to clear the goods consigned on certain terms and conditions that were indicated in the said order. Subsequently, by another order dated 29th January, 1987, some modifications were made by the learned Judge. From the said order, it would appear that the said order would only relate to the goods which would be imported by the unit petitioner. Some typographical mistakes which cropped up in the said order were also corrected by a subsequent order passed on 10th February, 1987. From the said order, it would appear that the said order would only relate to the goods which would be imported by the unit petitioner. Some typographical mistakes which cropped up in the said order were also corrected by a subsequent order passed on 10th February, 1987. Again, on the aforesaid writ application, another order was passed on 30th March, 1987, whereby the learned Single Judge passed an order to the following effect:"the respondents shall release the goods upon payment of duty as leviable in respect of the goods which would not answer the description of the mother pipe or in respect of which exemption notification dated 24. 11. 1986 is applicable. Let such goods be released within three days after the payment of the duty, if any. " ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that on the basis of the aforesaid orders, the consigned goods which were involved in the said writ application were subsequently released by the Customs Authorities. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Customs Authorities that the consigned goods which are now involved in this writ application, were imported by the writ petitioner on the basis of the same contract, that is, 22-1-1986, and subsequently, the consigned goods, which are now involved in this writ application, had arrived in Calcutta Port in the month of December, 1987. Unfortunately, since December 1987, the consigned goods, which are now involved in this writ application, have not been released in favour of the writ petitioner by the Customs Authorities. It is on record that in the month of December, 1989, the Customs Authorities made an application in the disposed of writ petition praying for clarification and/or vacation and/or modification of the order dated 5th December, 1986, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, reference of which has already been made hereinabove. It is also on record that on 9th February, 1990, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order on the said application, inter alia, directing that until disposal of the said application for modification, the writ petitioner shall not ask for delivery of any further consignment on the basis of the order in respect of which clarification was sought for by the application for modification. ( 4 ) THEREFORE, from the aforesaid order, it would be evident that the question of asking for release by the writ petitioner before the Customs Authorities could not arise at that time. It is also on record that subsequently on 13th November, 1990, the application for modification and/or vacation and/or variation of the order passed on the writ application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. It has been stated in the writ application that only in the month of January, 1995, the learned Advocate-on-Record of the writ petitioner upon searching of the Minute book dated 13th November, 1993, found that the application for modification and/or variation and/or vacation of the order disposing of the writ application was dismissed. Therefore, it is certain that the order of dismissal of the application for modification was not known to the writ petitioner at least till 24th January, 1995. The present writ application has been moved on 2nd May, 1995, in this Court. ( 5 ) FROM the aforesaid facts as stated hereinabove, the writ petitioner has now come up to this Court for a direction upon the respondents to release the consigned goods in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, on the writ application which was moved for release of the consigned goods, which were shipped from London to Calcutta on the basis of the same contract dated -22nd January, 1986. ( 6 ) HEARD Mr. Sen, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, and Mr. Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Customs Authorities. ( 6 ) HEARD Mr. Sen, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, and Mr. Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Customs Authorities. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of this case and particularly the fact that the goods consigned which are involved in this writ application were imported and reached Calcutta Port in the year 1988 and also considering the fact that the goods consigned which are involved in this writ application were also on the basis of the same contract dated 22nd January, 1986 and as the consigned goods of similar nature and were released by the Customs Authorities in terms of the order passed by this Court on the earlier writ petition on 5th December, 1986,1 am of the view that the writ petitioner is also entitled to an order of release of the goods consigned arising out of the same contract on the same terms and conditions as were imposed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the order dated 5th December, 1986 and in the subsequent orders passed thereafter. ( 8 ) MR. Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Customs Authorities, submits that since the goods were lying in the bonded warehouse since 1987, the writ petitioner shall not face any prejudice if the adjudication proceeding is directed to be initiated against the writ petitioner now and the same is disposed of within a very short time. ( 9 ) IN my view, in the background of the facts, as stated hereinabove, and as the goods of similar nature were released by the authorities on the basis of the order dated 5th December, 1986 and also on the basis of subsequent orders in respect of similar goods, I do not find any reason not to pass a similar order today on the basis of the direction made by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ application. ( 10 ) IT is true that the application for modification and/or variation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid writ application 1 was made at the instance of the Customs Authorities, but unfortunately this application stood dismissed in the year 1990 as nobody appeared to press the application for modification before the learned Single Judge. It is also true that the application for recall of that order was passed in the year 1990 has now been filed when this writ application is taken up for hearing. ( 11 ) I have no hesitation in my mind to hold that the present application for recall of the earlier order dated 13th November, 1990 is a misconceived one. The order disposing of the earlier writ application, admittedly, was passed on 5th December, 1986 and subsequently, certain other orders were also passed by the learned Single Judge in the years 1986 and 1987. No steps were taken by the Customs Authorities either by filing an appeal against the said orders or by filing an application for recall of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ application for a period of about 7 years from the date of making the application for recall of the order. As noted hereinabove, the application for recall of order was made about 3 years after the disposal of the writ application. That too was dismissed in the year 1990. Only when this writ application was going to be disposed of by me, an application for recall of the order has now been filed by the authorities before me asking for recall of the order dated 13th November, 1990 dismissing the application filed by the Customs Authorities for recall of the order dated 5th December, 1986 and the orders passed subsequent thereto. Apart from that it is now an admitted position that the Customs Authorities long back in the year 1987, 1988 had accepted the orders of the learned Judge by permitting the release of the goods which were involved in the earlier writ petition and therefore, it is not open in the mouth of the Customs Authorities to say that the order directing release of the Goods consigned should be modified, be varied even on the facts alleged is the present application, I am unable to find that the facts stated in the application constitute sufficient cause for non appearance on the date the application was dismissed for default. ( 12 ) IN support of the contention that the delay in filing the present application for recall should be condoned in. ( 12 ) IN support of the contention that the delay in filing the present application for recall should be condoned in. exercise of my power, as, according to the learned Counsel for the Customs Authorities, sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay in filing the present application, reliance was placed in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Moni and Ors. reported in. ( 13 ) IN that case, the Supreme Court was considering delay of 109 days only. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the Supreme Court held that the explanation given to the said application for condonation of delay constituted sufficient cause. That being the position, in the facts and circumstances of that case it was held that delay in filing the appeal after 109 days should be condoned. ( 14 ) IN the present case, I am of the view that the application filed by the Customs Authorities is not bona fide and is mis-conceived. It has only been filed at the time when the writ petition itself was taken up for hearing. There is no explanation as to why the Customs Authorities had no knowledge of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application for about 6 years, although the Customs Authorities were represented by a learned Counsel of this Court. Apart from that, there is another aspect for which the application filed by the Customs Authorities should be refused. It the Customs Authorities were really diligent, it was open for them to file an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ application. On the other hand, it appears from the record that the order dated 5th December, 1986 was complied with by the Customs Authorities without any objection whatsoever. ( 15 ) SUCH being the position, although for condonation of delay this aspect may not be considered, but taking overall view of the matter, I am of the view that delay in filing the application for recall of the order dated 13th November, 1990 cannot be condoned as no sufficient cause has been shown by the Customs Authorities for such condonation. ( 16 ) SINCE the consigned goods are lying in the bonded warehouse since 1987 without any use and considering the order passed by this Court previously which were accepted by the Customs Authorities in the past, I do not find any reason to hold that the order that was passed by the learned Single Judge in the other writ application of similar nature should not be passed in this writ application. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ application is allowed. The Customs Authorities are directed to release the consigned goods comprising 18. 75 Metric Tonnes presently lying at West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation, a bonded-warehouse situated at Hide Road, Calcutta, upon payment of the assessed Customs Duty and also in addition to that, the freight and other expenses in the assessable value of the imported goods for the purpose of assessment of the Customs Duty within one month from the date of communication of this order. The writ application is, thus, allowed to the extent indicating above. All parties shall act on a xerox signed copy of this judgment and order upon the usual undertaking. 1