1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5737 OF 2010 Bobsons Corporation ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S.N. Kantawala i/by Mr. Brijesh Pathak for Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for Respondents. CORAM: V. C. DAGA, & S. J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED: 10TH AUGUST, 2010 P. C.: Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard forthwith. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 8.7.2010 whereunder seized goods covered under Bill of entry No. 843368 and 843386 dated 8.1.2010 and 850608 dated 13.1.2010 are ordered to be released provisionally on execution of bond of 100% value (re-determined value) and on furnishing a bank guarantee in the amount equal to 50% of the 2 redetermined value. SUBMISSIONS : Mr. Kantawala the learned counsel for the Petitioner during the course of hearing brought to our notice that the deposit of Rs.61 lacs. made much before the date of order of provisional release has not been taken into consideration while considering the question of security. In his submission the subject goods were detained somewhere on 13.1.2010 and from the date of detention, the show cause notice ought to have been issued within the period of six months as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ESI Limited Versus Union of India, 2003 (156) E.L.R. 344 (Cal.). He further submits that the bank guarantee ordered to be furnished equal to 50% of the redetermined value is not legal and valid since it does not take into account the payment of duty in the sum of Rs. 61 lacs. and that the maximum fine/penalty is considered, which is never imposed. He thus submits that no realistic view is taken while determining the question of security. Mr. Jetly the learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the provisional release order is in accordance with the law and 3 the same is in consonance with section 110 of the Customs Act. However, he submits that within one week show cause notice would be issued and within three weeks from the date of receipt of reply, the same would be adjudicated upon. He further makes a statement that on being applied for by the Petitioner, detention certificate will be issued. CONSIDERATION : Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, the order under challenge being the provisional release order and considering the absence of show cause notice inspite of lapse of more than six months, we accept the statement made by Mr. Jetly. that within the period of one week from today, show cause notice will be issued and within three weeks from the date of reply, the same will be adjudicated upon. In view of the above, we direct the Petitioner to reply the show cause notice within one week from the date of receipt thereof and may apply for detention certificate to the Competent Authority. In the meanwhile Petitioner to execute a bond of 100% 4 value and furnish a bank guarantee of any nationalised bank for the amount equal to Rs. 1 Crore, within the period of 10 days from today. On furnishing the Bank guarantee the revenue is directed to release the goods on provisional basis. The impugned order dated 8.7.2010 directing provisional release stands modified to this extent. Rest of the order shall remain as it is. Petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule made absolute in terms of this order. No order as to costs. (S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.) (V. C. DAGA, J.)