IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4457 OF 2009 Jiten M. Shah. ......Petitioner Vs. 1.Union of India & Ors. ....Respondents Mr. A.M. Sethna i/b. L.S. Shetty & Associates for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Jetly with J.B. Mishra for the respondents CORAM; F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 8TH MAY, 2009 P.C. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. The petitioner has approached this Court to impugn the direction directing them to furnish bank guarantee of 30% of the seizure value. On behalf of the petitioner learned Counsel submits that he has already paid the differential duty at the time of provisional release and they are bound to pay the duty on the declared value and in these circumstances it is submitted that he should not be called upon apart from bond to furnish bank guarantee as prayed for. 2. The learned Counsel draws our attention to the order of this Court dated 3rd December, 2008 in Writ Petition No.7598 of 2008 and contends that in that case 10% guarantee was directed to be furnished and the same should be applied also in the present case. 3. After perusing the order of this Court dated 3rd December, 2008 we do not find any law as such laid down. It was on the facts of that case. In fact in that case the bank guarantee was 25% which was reduced to 10%. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the petition is partly allowed. In stead of 30% bank guarantee the petitioner is directed to furnish bank guarantee to the extent of 20% on the seizure value. Rule made absolute accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)