: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 299 OF 2010 M/s. Peace International, Vithal Niwas, Second Floor, Jacob Circle, Mumbai - 400 001, through its Proprietor, Mr. John Victor Miranda ... Petitioner V e r s u s 1. The Assistant Commissioner, (Apprg) Customs and Central Excise, Mormugao-Goa. 2. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, ICE House, EDC Complex, Patto Panaji Goa. 403 001. ... Respondents Mr. P. S. Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Asstistant Solicitor General for the Respondents. CORAM:- S. J. VAZIFDAR & U.D. SALVI, JJ Dated:- 5th May, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.J. VAZIFDAR, J) 1. Rule. At the request of the parties the matter is heard : 2 : finally forthwith. 2. Respondent No.2 is the Commissioner of Custom, Central Excise and Service Tax, Panaji Goa. The Petitioner has sought a Writ of certiorari to quash and set aside a communication dated 5.2.2010 and for an order directing the Respondents to provisionally release the goods imported in the name of the sole proprietary concern i.e. M/s. Peace International. 3. The Petitioner imported a consignment of 6100 pieces of metal cabinets for storing car CD player and one set of BMB CXS 850 SE speakers under an invoice dated 18.8.2009 from a party in Singapore. 4. The Petitioner has further contended that the said goods are unbranded and of Chinese origin but imported from Singapore. According to the Respondents, however they are branded goods manufactured by Sony. 5. The value declared in the bill of entry is US Dollars 6.65 per piece equivalent to Rs.323.85 per piece at the time of import. There is no dispute that the goods are not prohibited. The : 3 : import therefore is permissible. The consignment was unloaded at Mormugao and the Petitioner filed a bill of entry for its clearance under home consumption bill of entry dated 31.8.2009. The first check examination passed the goods. Two days later the consignment was re-examined by the Special Investigation Intelligence Branch (SIIB) of the Customs department. Thereafter the entire consignment was examined by the SIIB. The SIIB by a letter dated 9.9.2009 called upon the Petitioner to furnish the information and documents. The Petitioner however did not furnish certain information such as details of the manufacturer alleging a trade practice on their part. 6. Ultimately the Petitioner received the impugned communication dated 5.2.2010. The Petitioner was informed that the competent authority had ordered that the goods be released provisionally by taking the unit value of Rs. 1749/- per piece against the bond and 100% bank guarantee taking into consideration the differential duty, mandatory penalty and 30% redemption fine amounting to Rs.1,39,57,685/- from a Nationalized bank. The Petitioner was therefore requested for a provisional duty bond along with bank guarantee for Rs. 1,39,57,684.41 from a : 4 : Nationalized bank for the release of the goods. 7. Mr. Ferreira, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that there is no provisional assessment and that the same is yet to be done. In view of the said statement, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the Writ Petition. 8. The Petition is disposed off by accepting Mr. Ferreira's statement that the provisional assessment has not been carried out and that the same shall be carried out on or before 31.07.2010 subject to the Petitioner complying with all its obligations in respect thereof. 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. S. J. VAZIFDAR, J U.D. SALVI, J at*