Judgment : Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. FACTS: Holdia Bulk Terminal Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as H.B.T.) a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 is mainly engaged in the field of Cargo handling operation at Haldia Dock Complex. They imported various equipments including Mobile Harbour Cranes, Wheel Loaders, Dumpers etc. under a scheme that would exempt import duty subject to compliance of conditions imposed there for. As per the Foreign Policy, they were supposed to furnish Bank Guarantees covering the export duty so that, in case of any violation of the conditions the authorities would be in a position to collect the duty through invocation of Bank Guarantees. The entire scheme was being monitored by Director General of Foreign Trade (D.G.F.T.). The import was effected in 2009 followed by three Bank Guarantees amounting to Rs. 3,01,10,808.00; 43,80,906.00 and 18.94,00,000.00. H.B.T. claimed, they performed their obligation under the Foreign Policy and as such was entitled to return of the Bank Guarantees. As per conditions of the contract they duly submitted a clearance certificate from the Director General of Foreign Trade (D.G.F.T.) appearing at page 169 wherein the Director General of Foreign Trade (D.G.F.T.) gave their consent, rather recommended for return of the Bank Guarantees. At that juncture, Customs Authority declined to return, according to them, they would be entitled to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 110, 110 A and 124 of the Customs Act. Being aggrieved, H.B.T. filed a suit for return of the Bank Guarantees and obtained ad-interim order to the said effect. The learned Single Judge passed ad-interim order on March 15, 2013, directing status quo with regard to transfer of funds that was continued from time to time. The H.B.T. would contend, despite repeated notices, the authority did not appear. The matter was listed “For Orders” on April 23, 2013. The Customs Authority appeared before His Lordship and His Lordship fixed the matter on a subsequent date to enable the Customs Authority to make their submission. The matter appeared on November 7, 2013 when His Lordship again adjourned the matter to enable the Customs Authority to appear as on that date they were absent. The matter ultimately appeared before His Lordship on November 26, 2013 when His Lordship disposed of the application by directing return of the guarantees amounting to Rs. 22 crores. The matter appeared on November 7, 2013 when His Lordship again adjourned the matter to enable the Customs Authority to appear as on that date they were absent. The matter ultimately appeared before His Lordship on November 26, 2013 when His Lordship disposed of the application by directing return of the guarantees amounting to Rs. 22 crores. His Lordship rejected the contentions of the Customs as according to the Customs, the H.B.T. was still under obligation to furnish further documents. His Lordship observed, the letter dated March 14, 2013 from the office of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade would make it clear, H.B.T. performed their obligation stipulated in the licence. Hence, the Customs Authority could not have any duty claim against the plaintiff. His Lordship directed discharge of the guarantees. The Customs Authority subsequently discharged the guarantees and preferred this belated appeal that we heard on the above mentioned dates. CONTENTIONS: Mr. R. Bharadwaj learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend, the letter of the Director General referred to above, would not ipso facto preclude the Customs Authority to proceed against H.B.T. in adjudicating their actual liability towards Customs. He would refer to Sections 17, 47, 110, 110 A and 124 of the Customs Act to contend, the said Act would have a complete procedure as to adjudication of the Customs liability. Unless and until the authority would proceed in accordance with law and pass a final verdict on the issue discharging H.B.T. from any obligation to pay any duty the Bank Guarantees could not be released. Mr. Bharadwaj would, however, in usual fairness contend, since the Bank Guarantees had already been released he would be satisfied if we set aside the observation of His Lordship, to the extent, where His Lordship held that the authority would have no duty claim. The observation of His Lordship would actually preclude the authority to proceed against the H.B.T. in accordance with law. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Mitra learned Senior Counsel appearing for H.B.T. would contend, the scheme was propounded by the Union of India as Foreign Trade Policy and the authority under the said policy was Director General of Foreign Trade, once the Director General gave clearance and recommended return of the guarantees the Customs Authority could not have any claim in the matter. A.K. Mitra learned Senior Counsel appearing for H.B.T. would contend, the scheme was propounded by the Union of India as Foreign Trade Policy and the authority under the said policy was Director General of Foreign Trade, once the Director General gave clearance and recommended return of the guarantees the Customs Authority could not have any claim in the matter. He would refer to the letter of the Customs Authority asking for documents and the reply of H.B.T. giving all particulars as asked for. According to him, the Customs Authority asked for the documents by their letter dated on May 2, 2013 that HBT replied promptly on May 9, 2013. The Customs Authority never replied back asking for any further details. Hence, H.B.T. was entitled to release all the guarantees. On instruction, Mr. Mitra would inform this Court, H.B.T. never removed any equipment from Haldia Port Complex. They would be relocating those equipments in terms of the Court order passed in another proceeding. Hence, there was no violation on the part of the H.B.T.. To support his contention Mr. Mitra would rely upon two decisions: 1. Hy-Grade Pellets Limited Vs. Commission of Custom, Visakhapatnam reported in Excise Law times Page- 171 2. Bhilwara Spinners Limited Vs. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, department of Commerce and others reported in 2011 Excise Law Time Page- 49 While giving reply, Mr. Bharadwaj contended, the Customs Authority is duty to bound to proceed in accordance with law and complete procedure was prescribed under the Customs Act. The civil Court could not have any jurisdiction in this regard to transgress upon such arena. Distinguishing the cases cited at the bar Mr. Bharadwaj would contend, the orders impugned in those two cases were passed in an appropriate proceeding that would be lawful under the special law whereas the present proceeding before the Civil Court would be without jurisdiction. OUR VIEW We have considered the rival contentions. since Mr. Bharadwaj made concession on the return of the Bank Guarantees, we do not wish to dilate on the said issue, that our task has thus become easier. The question would thus remain whether the learned Judge could have observed to the extent and the same referred to above, would be liable to be set aside or not. since Mr. Bharadwaj made concession on the return of the Bank Guarantees, we do not wish to dilate on the said issue, that our task has thus become easier. The question would thus remain whether the learned Judge could have observed to the extent and the same referred to above, would be liable to be set aside or not. The relevant extract that the Union of India objects is reproduced below: “From this letter alone this court is able to come to a conclusion that the Customs Authority cannot have any duty claim against the plaintiff.” To decide the issue, we have closely examined the letter dated March 14, 2013 appearing at page 169. The Foreign Trade Development office wrote to H.B.T. to the following extent: “With reference to your letter dated September 30, 2009 on the above mentioned subject, I write to inform you that on the basis of document submitted towards discharge of export obligation by you, it is observed that the Export Obligation stipulated in the Licence has been made in full in proportion to duty amount utilized by you. Consequently Export Obligation has been discharged against the said authorization in terms of Para 5.13 of H.B. of procedure.” If we closely examine the letter, it would appear, the Foreign Trade Department was satisfied with regard to discharge of the export obligation stipulated in the licence that might be one of the support documents to get the Bank Guarantees discharged. If we look to page 170, we would find, H.B.T., by letter dated March 18, 2013 asked for return of the guarantees on the strength of the certificate of Foreign Trade referred to herein before. They also submitted relevant documents required there for. The Customs Authority, however, wanted furthermore details that according to H.B.T., were duly supplied through letter dated May 9, 2013. Now that the Bank Guarantees had been released and to the said extent Mr. Bharadwaj conceded, we need not dilate on the issue. We would only examine as to whether the learned Judge, sitting in civil jurisdiction, could draw a conclusion, no duty was payable. Payment of duty under the Customs Act is determined through a complete procedure prescribed in law. The Civil Court, in our view, would not be competent to hold, no duty was payable. We would only examine as to whether the learned Judge, sitting in civil jurisdiction, could draw a conclusion, no duty was payable. Payment of duty under the Customs Act is determined through a complete procedure prescribed in law. The Civil Court, in our view, would not be competent to hold, no duty was payable. If we closely examine the letter dated March 14, 2013, we would not find any definite assertion, no customs duty was payable. The letter might have a dominant role in the matter of adjudication of the customs duty, it might be otherwise. Observation of the Civil Court would rather foreclose the right of the customs authorities to deal with the issue in accordance with law. In the case of Bhilwara Spinners Limited (Supra), the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal established in accordance with the provisions of the special statute. Similarly in the case of Hy-Grade Pellets Limited (Supra), the adjudication was made by the Commissioner of Customs. In none of the said two cases, there was adjudication by the Civil Court. In our view, the learned Judge should not have said so. In accordance with the provisions of Section 155, no suit does lie against the Central Government for any act done in pursuance of the Customs Act or the Rules or Regulations framed there under. The learned Judge possibly missed out the said provision while observing as such. We set aside the paragraph quoted (Supra). We do not make any comment on the discharge of the Bank Guarantees in view of the concession made by Mr. Bharadwaj. We observe, Customs Authority would be at liberty to proceed as against H.B.T. in accordance with law if they are so entitled to. We abundantly make it clear, any of the observation of His Lordship sitting in the civil jurisdiction would not create any fetter for the Customs Authority to proceed in accordance with law. The appeal thus succeeds in part and is allowed to the extent as above. The appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs.