IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7598 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7598 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7598 OF 2008 Jiten M. Shah ..Petitioner. V/s. The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7615 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7615 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7615 OF 2008 Kaushal Anil Shah ..Petitioner. V/s. The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.V.Sridharan i/b. PDS Legal for petitioners in both the petitions. Smt. S.I.Shagh with Rajinder Kumar for respondents. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 3RD DECEMBER, 2008. DATED : 3RD DECEMBER, 2008. DATED : 3RD DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. By filing these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 3/11/2008 passed by the Customs Authorities, Nhava Sheva. By the impugned order, the department has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to release part of the goods without bank guarantee and ordered release of the goods provisionally based on submission of a bond for full - = : 2 : = - value of the goods and 25% bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioners have already paid the differential duty to the department. It is further submitted that the petitioners were also allowed to clear the goods on payment of duty and subsequently even the estimated duty which has been assessed by the department has also been paid. It is submitted that it is now difficult for the petitioners to furnish 25% bank guarantee in view of financial difficulties. It is submitted that the petitioners are ready to furnish a bond as well as bank guarantee to the extent of 10%. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the department is entitled to impose conditions while releasing the goods provisionally. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have gone through the petition and the reply. It is pertinent to note that the main issue is pending with the department and since the petitioners have sought provisional release, it would not be just and proper to deal with the matter on merits, as it may prejudice the case of either side. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case - = : 3 : = - and considering the fact that initially the goods were allowed to be released on payment of duty and subsequently on the basis of some information, the department temporarily changed its opinion that the petitioners have not disclosed the correct value of the imported goods, it would be just and proper to modify the impugned order. Instead of asking the petitioners for bank guarantee of 25%, the respondents are directed to release the goods provisionally on each of the petitioner furnishing 10% bank guarantee and giving bond regarding full value of the goods to the concerned department. On furnishing the same, the respondents shall release the goods of the petitioners. 3. Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (P.B.MAJMUDAR (P.B.MAJMUDAR (P.B.MAJMUDAR J.) J.) J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)