1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 8355 OF 2008 ZICOM ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEMS LTD. .. PETITIONERS Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. H. C. Daruwalla a/w Vishal Lohine & Anupam Dighe i/b India Law Alliance for petitioners Mr. P. S. Jetly with R. E. Pardeshi for respondents CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & J. P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE: 13/1/2009 P.C. . The petitioners had imported consignment of 3200 units of components of door bells from the JNPT Port which was seized by the officers of the 2nd respondent on the ground that the said goods were Video Phones and, therefore, liable for payment of additional duty. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that as the said consignment of 3200 units was urgently required by the petitioners for sale in the 2 domestic market they requested the 2nd respondent to release the said units. However, the 2nd respondent insisted for a bank guarantee of an amount equal to 15% of the value of the consignment of 3200 units of the said goods. The petitioners paid the differential additional duty and additionally also gave a bank guarantee of Rs.7,51,309/- through Union Bank of India, Andheri (E) Mumbai. 3. It appears that, thereafter the 2nd respondent adjudicated the consignment of 3200 units of the said goods under Order No. 302 CC(I) JNCH issued on 15th December, 2008. Under the said order the 2nd respondent confirmed the demand of differential additional duty and gave directions for encashment of the said guarantee given by the petitioners even before the expiry of statutory period of three months for filing the appeal. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order and hence has filed this petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. He has drawn our attention to the judgment of this court in Noble Asset Co. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India, 2005 (187) E.L.T. 438 (Bom.) 3 where in somewhat similar circumstances, this court observed that in view of the declared policy of the respondents it is not proper for them to encash the bank guarantee before the expiry of statutory period provided for filing the appeal. This court directed that until the appeal along with application for stay is moved by the petitioners before the Tribunal the bank guarantee shall not be encashed. 5. We are informed that the petitioners have already filed appeal. In view of this and in the light of judgment of this court in Noble Asset Company Ltd.’s case, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order: . We direct that the respondents shall not encash the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners till the stay application filed by the petitioners is disposed of. The petitioners shall keep the bank guarantee alive till the application for stay is heard and disposed of on its own merits for a period of four weeks thereafter. We make it clear that, we have not examined the merits of the case. . Petition is disposed of. 4 JUDGE JUDGE