JUDGMENT : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner had filed the additional affidavit along with the memo of the appeal as was filed before the Tribunal. Para 14 prayer clause of the appeal reads as under: "14. Appellant claimed for provisional release of the seized goods u/s 110(A) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, no order was passed on the application nor the option was given to the persons (drivers) from whose possession the goods were seized. Goods were sold in auction at a much lesser value than the market price. Speaks of malafide intent of the authorities. Based on the aforementioned considerations, it is therefore fervently prayed that the impugned Order-in- Original dated 03.01.2017 be set aside/quashed with the direction to refund the seizure value." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Order-in- Original dated 03.01.2017 has been set aside and appeal allowed by the Tribunal, that automatically means refund of the seizure value is in favour of the petitioner. In opposition, learned CGC would submit that the position is ambiguous, same can be clarified by the Tribunal itself because there is no positive direction for refund of the seizure value, when according to the learned counsel for the petitioner refund of the seizure value in the context of the order allowing the appeals is automatic. 3. In contempt proceedings no direction can be issued, it shall be appropriate to leave it open to the wisdom of the Tribunal to interpret order regarding the refund of the seizure value. Tribunal is expected to dispose of the application as shall be filed by the petitioner preferably within a period of thirty days. 4. Contempt proceedings are, accordingly closed.