Inadvertent misinterpretation of court directions regarding tax collection does not constitute willful contempt.

The petitioner filed a contempt application alleging non-compliance with a judgment dated September 22, 2025, which had quashed the "final findings" and the subsequent Notification No. 12/2025-Customs (ADD) levying anti-dumping duties on Titanium Dioxide imported from China PR.

Despite the quashing of the notification, the customs authorities continued to collect the duties.

During proceedings, the respondents (Contemnors) submitted that the collection was an inadvertent error and issued a communication on December 5, 2025, to stop the levy.

The petitioner subsequently applied for refunds, but contended that the process was delayed.

1. Whether the continued collection of anti-dumping duty post the quashing of the parent notification amounted to willful or deliberate contempt of court.

2. Whether the explanation of "inadvertent misinterpretation" by the respondents is sufficient to discharge the contempt proceedings.

Principles of Special Jurisdiction (Contempt), focusing on whether there was "wilful or deliberate non-compliance" with a judicial order.

Procedural requirements for refunds under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Rules framed thereunder.

The core doctrine that the removal of the basis of a levy (quashing the notification) necessitates the cessation of collection and the subsequent restitution (refund) of illegally collected amounts.

The court evaluated the respondents' affidavit, which stated that the authorities misinterpreted a specific direction in the original judgment—"Levy if any, collected in the meantime shall be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings"—as permission to continue collecting duty until a final reconsidered decision was made by the Designated Authority.

The court noted that once the contempt proceedings were initiated, the respondents promptly stopped the levy and issued instructions for refunds.

The court found that although the collection was erroneous, the respondents demonstrated bona fides by acknowledging the mistake, correcting the course through the December 5 communication, and processing the petitioner's refund applications.

Consequently, the threshold for "wilful contempt" was not met given the corrective actions taken.

The court directed that the petitioner’s refund applications be processed immediately in accordance with the respondents' undertakings.

The court found no fruitful purpose in continuing the proceedings and disposed of the contempt application (CC/119/2025) without costs.