IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 161 OF 2011 SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for the Respondents. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 16th March, 2011 P.C.: By consent of parties, this petition is disposed of at admission stage itself. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to forthwith grant port clearance to a vessel which has been booked by buyers abroad for export cargo. 3. The petitioners entered into Sale-Purchase Contract dated 17-02-2011 with GBA Minmetals Trading Ltd., Hong Kong for supply of 1,46,000 metric tons having Fe content of 55-54%. It is the case of the petitioners that in order to commence loading of goods, shipping bill was presented to Panaji Customs for clearance of export goods. 4. It is further the case of the petitioners that, at the relevant time i.e. when the shipping bill was presented, Customs Duty at 5% in terms of Notification dated 24-12-2009 was in force and the goods attracted that duty. Copy of Notification is at Annexure-C to the petition. However, this Notification was superceded by Notification No. 27/2011 which came into effect from 01-03-2011. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that on presentation of shipping bills there was provisional assessment of duty on 23-02-2011 and the amount of Rs. 1,25,52,708/- was assessed which was duly paid. However, the respondents have not granted port clearance with the reason that demurrage charges of Rs. 11,25,000/- per day has to be paid by the petitioners, which is a recurring liability. 6. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of the respondents pointed out that shipping bill is issued on the condition that subject to payment of duty cess and examination of cargo. This condition has not been adhered to by the petitioners. They have not challenged the same. The petitioners have to abide by the relevant notification. Therefore, until and unless the amount is deposited, port clearance cannot be granted. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners submits that the Authority has repeatedly held up port clearances in such cases. He further submits that the petitioners have no remedy because until and unless the assessment is finalized, the petitioners cannot file an appeal. 7. After hearing the learned Counsel at some length and after perusing the petition and annexures thereto, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners should secure the differential duty, if any, subject to their rights and contentions in law. However, for protecting the Revenue and balancing equity, we deem it fit to direct the petitioners to furnish Bank Guarantee of a Nationalised Bank in the sum of Rs. 2,39,54,748/- (Rupees Two Crores Thirty-Nine Lakhs Fifty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty-Eight only) in favour of the Commissioner of Customs, Panaji. On furnishing such Bank Guarantee, respondents to grant port clearance, allowing the vessel in question to sail with the consignment on board. 8. Needless to state that the Bank Guarantee should be kept alive till the respondents finally assess and determine the duty liability. It is made clear that the petitioners should furnish Bank Guarantee without prejudice to the rights and contentions as available in law. 9. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. EV