IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1217 of 2010 NAGINA MAHTO . Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA THRU.COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), PATNA. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS (P) DIVISION MUZUFFARPUR ----------- 05. 06.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Senior Standing Counsel for the Custom Department. Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 23rd of September 2010 passed in Cr. W.J.C. No. 652 of 2010, this court directed the Assistant Commissioner, Custom Division, Muzuffarpur to dispose of the matter relating to the release of the pulses in question which were seized to his satisfaction vide Annexure- 8. Pursuant to the above order, the order dated 7th of October 2010 has been communicated to the petitioner as per C.No. VIII(48)47-Cus/MZP/PR/10/8287 dated 08.10.2010 (Annexure –(9) whereby the value of the pulses has been mentioned as per Rs. 41,08,000/- and the petitioner who claimed to be the legal owner of the aforesaid pulses, was required to execute a bond of Rs. 80,00000/- as also additional security to the extent of 135% of the value of pulses i.e. Rs. 55,45,800/- subject to complying all conditions as prescribed in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 the conditions imposed for release of the pulses valued at Rs. 41,08,000/- is excessive as it would appear that for release of the truck which were of subject matter of consideration in the aforesaid writ application and dispose of by order as contained in Annexure- 6, whereby this court taking into consideration that the Department had imposed two conditions for release of the truck . One condition for release was to execute a bond for full value of the vehicle and the second condition was to furnish security to the extent of 50% of the value of the vehicle. This court modified the conditions of additional security by reducing from 50% to 35% of the value of the vehicle. Petitioner submits that in case of the pulses also the same criteria may also be applied ie. Execution of bond for full value of the pulses with 35% of the value of the pulses as additional security. Learned counsel for the Custom Department support the impugned order (Annexure-9), however, it is submitted that since this court had reduced the additional security in case of trucks from 50% to 35% therefore, the prayer of the petitioner that in the case of pulse also the additional security be reduced to the extent of 35% of the value of the pulses is not correct and justified. Considering the rival submission of the parties, 3 it appears on perusal of the previous order as contained in Annexure- 8 that the department with respect to the release of the truck had imposed two conditions firstly, that the applicant for release has to execute a bond to the extent of 100% of the value of the vehicle and secondly, petitioner was to furnish additional security to the extent of 50% of the value of the vehicle. This court, had no occasion to make any direction with respect to the pulses in question as since at that time no order for release passed by the department. The order contained in Annexure- 9 has been issued with respect to the release of the pulses where the department has imposed two conditions firstly, that the bond has to be executed for a sum of Rs. 80,00000/- and the security has to be furnished to the extent of 135% of the value of the pulses. This court, considering the previous order of this court as contained in Annexure- 8 as also the order passed by the department as contained in Annexure- 9 with respect to the release of the pulses, is of the opinion that imposing the conditions to execute a bond of 80,00000/- which is virtually double the amount of the value of the pulses and also furnishing the security to the extent of 135% of the value of the pulses appears to be excessive and as such, accordingly modifies the order whereby order for 4 furnishing the bond of 80,00000/- to be reduced to the value of the pulses and the additional security be 50% of the value of the pulses. Accordingly, the Memo no. C.No. VIII(48)47-Cus/MZP/PR/10/8287 dated 08.10.2010 (Annexure –(9) in favour of the petitioner who was also writ petitioner of Cr. W.J.C. No. 652 of 2010 as referred in the order of this court as contained in Annexure- 8 is hereby quashed for passing a fresh order in accordance with law as indicated above expeditiously, preferable within a period of four weeks of receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)