1 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3712 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3712 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3712 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3713 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3713 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3713 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 3712 OF 2009 Yusuf Allarakha Boxwala .. Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 3713 OF 2009 Guru Kripa Textile HUF Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sudhir Malhotra with Mr. JagdishR.Chomal for the petitioner (in both matters). Mr. R.V.Desai, Senior Counsel with Mr. Rajinder Kumar for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh for respondent No.4. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA,JJ. J.H.BHATIA,JJ. J.H.BHATIA,JJ. 2 DATE: 23rd April, 2009. DATE: 23rd April, 2009. DATE: 23rd April, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.2566 of 2009 and W.P.No.2565 of 2009. ON behalf of the petitioner, a statement was made that the petitioner would make an application for provisional release of the goods. On behalf of the respondents a statement was made that if the said application is filed, appropriate order will be passed within one week. The Court accepted the statements and in view of that the petitions were disposed of. 3. Subsequent to the order passed by this Court, the petitioners made an application. By an order dated 5th March 2009, the respondents passed a provisional order of release of the goods. The petitioner aggrieved by the conditions imposed in the provisional order, has preferred the present petitions :- 4. It is the case of the petitioners that in the instant case there is no dispute about classification. 3 That aspect is fairly conceded on behalf of the respondents. ON behalf of the respondents a statement is made as also in the reply that there is a dispute as to the valuation. It is under these circumstances it is submitted that the conditions which are imposed are justified. 5. We have gone through the records as set out in the petition as also in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents. There is nothing on record as of today to indicate either in the form of any documentary evidence or any oral statement recorded of any person that the goods, namely, polyester fibre which has been imported has been undervalued. The petitioner has paid the entire amount in terms of the amount of value declared by him. In the absence of any material showing that there was undervaluation, clause (i) as a condition in para 4 could not have been imposed as that would be an arbitrary exercise. To that extent, clause (i) in para 4 is set aside. 6. Insofar as para 4(ii) is concerned, in our opinion, the goods have been cleared and samples have been taken. If that is the case, the petitioner herein could not have been asked to give his affidavit as set out therein. The condition is totally arbitrary. In 4 our opinion, therefore, condition No.(ii) also could not have been imposed and consequently that condition is set aside. 7. However, insofar as clause Nos.(iii), (iv) and (v) are concerned, considering that enquiries are going on, we do not find that those conditions can be said to be extraneous. Insofar as clause (v) is concerned, the petitioner to submit only the details of M/s. Sumit Wool Processors. If any other specific information is sought which is available with the petitioner and to their knowledge, they may make available such information. Condition (v) be so read. The petitioner otherwise must comply with the ordinary requirement of release of goods on provisional basis. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)