IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.146 of 2009 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI 2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM (PREV.) DIVISION, PATNA 3. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.) PATNA 4. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS (PREV.) DIVISION, PATNA 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS (PREV.) DIVISION, MOTIHARI 6. CUSTOM SUPERINTENDENT (PREV.), MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN 7. GODOWN INCHARGE CUSTOM (PREV.) DIVISION, MOTIHARI 8. INSPECTOR (SEARCH & SEIZURE) CUSTOMS (PREV.) DIVISION, MOTIHARI …… APPELLANTS. Versus 1. HARI KISHORE S/O SRI BIRENDRA, RESIDENT OF JANAKPURI, NEAR GAZIABAD, P.O. & P.S. GAZIABAD, U.P. AT PRESENT BRANCH MANAGER THA ROAD LINES, NEAR LAND CUSTOMS RAXAUL DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 2. SADRE ALAM S/O MD. ABBULAISH, RESIDENT OF NAHAR CHOWK, TRILOKINAGAR RAXAUL WARD NO.16, P.S. RAXAUL, DISTRICT RAXAUL ….. RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Appellants : Mrs. Archana Meenakshi, Senior Standing Counsel Mrs. Archana Sinha, Junior Standing Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Senior Advocate Mr. Shahnawaj Ali, Advocate ---------- 9. 1.9.2009 Heard Mrs. Archana Meenakshi, Senior Standing Counsel, for the appellants and Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Senior Advocate, for the respondents. The present respondents had filed C.W.J.C.No.15601 of 2008 for modifying the order of Customs authority relating to provisional release of public carrier on deposit of cash security of Rs.50,000/- and for release of the plastic scraps which had been seized by the 2 Customs authority. The learned Single Judge modified the order of the Customs authority relating to deposit of cash security of Rs.50,000/- by ordering furnishing of bond for Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Custom (Prev.) Division, Motihari. So far as this part of the order is concerned, since the learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion, we do not think there is any scope of taking a different view particularly when the learned Single Judge has directed regarding furnishing of two sureties of the like amount each. The next contention of the Counsel for the appellants is to the effect that the learned Single Judge has directed release of the plastic scraps but the fact that along with plastic scraps plastic granules of foreign origin were seized had not been highlighted. It is not in dispute that the value of the plastic scraps is very insignificant. Since the Customs authority themselves have released seized vehicle which part of the order has been modified, we do not think that it would be necessary for us to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge relating to release of the plastic scraps. However, it has been submitted by the Counsel for the appellants by referring to the order dated 11.12.2008 relating to release of the plastic granules, an application has 3 been filed subsequently for release of the plastic granules and the respondents are placing hard for the release of the same. It is made clear that the order dated 11.12.2008 does not relate to question of release of the plastic granules and any such application for release of the plastic granules has to be considered on its own merit. With the above observation, this appeal is disposed of. Narendra/ ( P. K. Misra, CJ. ) ( Anjana Prakash, J. )