Judgment V.M. Sahai J.—We have heard Mr. Mihir Joshi, Senior Counsel with Mr. Dhaval Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6.Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India Mr. P.S. Champaneri appears for respondent No. 4 Director General of Foreign Trade. 2. Before us, it is not disputed that licences have been issued to the petitioners by DGFT. Mr. Y.N. Ravani has submitted that DRI is making investigation under Customs Act as to whether petitioners have availed any benefit wrongly or not. If the petitioners have misused the licence or in issuing licence DGFT has committed any mistake, then it is always open to the DGFT to cancel the licence of the petitioner. But it has not been done so far. Initially, summons were issued by the Customs Authority asking the petitioners to appear before them and to provide the details with regard to export of fabric under RITC5407 claiming benefits of Focus Product Scheme of Chapter 3 of Foreign Trade Policy through JNCH Port by the petitioner company. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, neither any customs duty has been assessed on the petitioners nor any order has been passed against the petitioner for realising customs duty from the petitioners. Therefore, the demand of customs duty made by Customs Authority for which the petitioners had to deposit cheques with the DRI under threat of arrest by the petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, 2003 (151) ELT 254 (SC), whereas learned Counsel Mr. Y.N. Ravani has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 199 6(88) ELT 626 (SC). 5. Mr. Ravani states that since there is no assessment order nor any penalty order has been imposed on the petitioner nor there is any demand made by the respondents against the petitioners, therefore, they are ready to refund the cheques to the petitioners provided the petitioners apply for returning the cheque. However, Mr.Ravani further states that moment the petitioners apply for refund of the cheques of if any cheque has been encashed, the same shall be refunded to them in person or by RPAD as the petitioners desire. Mr. However, Mr.Ravani further states that moment the petitioners apply for refund of the cheques of if any cheque has been encashed, the same shall be refunded to them in person or by RPAD as the petitioners desire. Mr. Ravani has urged that these cheques were deposited by the petitioners voluntarily with a view to avoid penalty under Section 28-C of the Customs Act. However, in view of the statement made by Mr. Ravani, no dispute survives before us which requires adjudication. Once DGFT or any other authority proceeds and passes any order against the petitioners, it will always be open to the petitioners to challenge the same by taking appropriate proceedings and raise all questions which have been raised in these petitions, in accordance with law. 6. In view of the aforesaid observations, these petitions stand finally disposed of. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. P P P P P