Bright Metal Refiners Vs Dheeraj Rastogi & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court considered a contempt petition filed by M/s Bright Metal Refiners under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 215 of the Constitution, alleging wilful disobedience of the Division Bench judgment dated 4 June 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 5551/2026. The earlier judgment had directed immediate processing of the petitioner’s imported goods for release, holding that goods imported before the relevant notification came into force were governed by the conditions and legal position prevailing before its issuance. The petitioner alleged that the authorities had failed to comply with this direction.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submitted that the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) had to decide the issue and that its opinion had already been sought. Respondent No. 2 referred to the Supreme Court’s order dated 29 May 2026 in Hiemerle Refinery Private Limited v. Union of India, which permitted consideration of an application under the Office Memorandum dated 13 May 2026. The petitioner distinguished that order because it arose from an interim order of the Bombay High Court, whereas the Delhi High Court’s judgment was final and had already considered the DGFT’s role and the applicability of the notification.
The Delhi High Court found a prima facie case of wilful disobedience and directed the respondents to comply forthwith with paragraph 30 of its earlier judgment. In the event of continued non-compliance, the respondents were directed to remain personally present on 22 June 2026 at 10:30 AM. The order did not finally determine contempt liability.
Cases Discussed
- Heimerle Refinery Private Limited v. Union of India, SLP(C) No. 18946/2026, order dated 29 May 2026 (Supreme Court) — Relied upon by Respondent No. 2 regarding consideration of an application under the Office Memorandum dated 13 May 2026.
- Heimerle Refinery Private Limited v. Union of India, W.P.(L) No. 15901/2026, order dated 5 May 2026 (Bombay High Court) — An interim order reproduced in the present proceedings and distinguished by the petitioner from the final Delhi High Court judgment.
- Union of India v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills, 2020 (374) E.L.T. 289 (SC) — Cited in the reproduced Bombay High Court order concerning the applicability of import-related notifications.
- Viraj Impex Private Limited v. Union of India and Another, (2026) SCC OnLine SC 101 — Also cited in the reproduced Bombay High Court order in the context of notification applicability.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
CM APPL. 39051/2026(Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
CONT.CAS(C) 1059/2026
3. This is a Contempt Petition filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950 for wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 04.06.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5551/2026 (“Judgment”). Vide the Judgment, the Division Bench of this Court had passed the following directions:
“28. Thus, in such an eventuality, the goods in question were imported prior to the notification coming into force and are liable to be cleared in accordance with the conditions and legal position that prevailed before the issuance of the said notification.
29. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘a’.
30. We direct that the goods of the petitioner be processed for release immediately in terms of above observations.”
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that despite the clear direction to release the goods of the Petitioner immediately in terms of the Judgment, the Contemnors have wilfully not complied with the directions.
5. Issue Notice. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 as well as learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 accept Notice.
6. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 submits that the reason for not complying with the directions in the Judgment is that the Director General of Foreign Trade (“DGFT”) has to make a decision with regard to the release of goods and they are in the process of deciding the same. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 1 / Contemnor No. 1 has already written to DGFT seeking opinion for the release of the goods.
7. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has placed on record an order dated 29.05.2026 in SLP(C) No. 18946/2026 in the matter of Hiemerle Refinery Private Limited v. Union of India, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“1. Pending disposal of the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner is permitted to apply as per the Office Memorandum dated 13.05.2026. The said application may be considered and disposed of by the Competent Authority. The decision to be taken shall be uninfluenced by the observations made in the order impugned before us.
2. The decision taken by the Competent Authority may be placed before us on the next date of hearing.
3. List on 17.08.2026.”
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the said order dated 29.05.2026 is not applicable in the facts of the case because it is against an interim order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P.(L) No. 15901/2026. In the said petition, vide order dated 05.05.2026, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay had passed the following order:
“The writ petitioner, namely, Heimerle Refinery Private Limited is aggrieved by the communications dated 15th April 2026 and 16th April 2026 issued by the respondent-authority.
2. The issue involved in this writ petition is “Whether the imported goods which arrive within the territorial jurisdiction of India before the Notification No.02/2026-27 was published on 1st April 2026 shall be covered under the said notification. Mr.Vikram Nankani, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner refers to the decisions of Union of India v. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills, 2020(374) E.L.T. 289 (SC) and Viraj Impex Private Limited v. Union of India and Another (2026) SCC Online SC 101.
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner-company submits that in a similar situation the petitioner-company has been held not covered under the notification dated 1st April 2026.
2. Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra, the learned counsel for the Revenue has, however, stated that the petitioner-company after bills of lading in respect of the imported articles were lodged only on 10th April 2026 and 17th April 2026 and, therefore, such goods shall be covered under the notification dated 1st April 2026
3. Having regard to the interpretation made by the Gujrat High Court and the decisions in G. S. Chatha Rice Mills (supra) and Viraj Impex Private Limited (supra), we are of the opinion that the petitioner-company has been able to make out a case for interim relief. We, therefore, pass the following order :-
(i) The petitioner-company shall furnish ITC Bond of the Director of the company for release of the consignments which arrived on 1st April 2026 vide Bill of Entry Nos.8411463 and 8418268.
ii. The consignments vide Bill of Entry Nos.8590663 dated 10th April 2026 and 8735308 dated 17th April 2026 shall be provisionally released to the petitioner-company on furnishing 50% of the total value of these two consignments through bank guarantee and supported by ITC Bond for remaining 50% of the value.
6. Post these matters on 23rd June 2026.
7. Reply to be filed within four weeks.”
9. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the above order was in the nature of an interim order, whereas the Judgment is final in nature, and has been passed after considering all the submissions, including the role of the DGFT and aspect of the challenge to the notification issued by DGFT.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the contention of the Respondents / Contemnors that the DGFT has a role to play is misconceived as the position of the Petitioner has been consistently that the notification issued by the DGFT is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. In view of the above, a prima facie case has been made out for wilful disobedience of the Judgment. Accordingly, the Respondents / Contemnors are directed to strictly comply with the directions contained in Paragraph No. 30 of the Judgment forthwith.
12. In case the Respondents / Contemnors do not comply with the directions contained in the Judgment immediately, they shall remain personally present in this Court on 22.06.2026 at 10:30 AM.
13. List before the Vacation Bench on 22.06.2026 at 10:30 AM on top of the Board.
