SUDHIR RANJAN ROY, J. ( 1 ) THE instant writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the order of the Deputy Collector of Customs, dated March 31, 1981, imposing a penalty of Rs. 18,450/- upon the petitioner under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged short-landing of one box, containing polyester plain suiting, imported from Korea for transit to Nepal. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a company and carries on business as Steamer Agents for the Port of Calcutta for the sea going vessel "m. V. Makeverett", owned by Everett Orient Line Inc. of Liberia which arrived at the Port of Calcutta on December 13, 1977. ( 3 ) AMONG the cargo carried by the said vessel to the Port of Calcutta, there was a consignment of 78 wooden boxes said to have contained 38693 yards of 100% polyester plain suiting shipped on board the vessel at the Port of Busan, Korea for discharge at the Port of Calcutta in transit to Nepal. ( 4 ) IN the penalty proceeding started against the petitioner by the Customs authorities for the alleged short-landing of a portion of the said cargo under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, the only plea of the petitioner was that the provisions of Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 can have no application to Nepal cargo which is imported free of duty. The said objection having been overruled by the Deputy Collector of Customs by the impugned order and penalty having been imposed upon the petitioner for short-landing of the cargo, the petitioner invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of this court for a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to give any effect or further effect to the impugned order dated March 31, 1981 and for other reliefs. ( 5 ) THE respondent opposed the application by filing an Affidavit-in-Opposition, alleging inter alia that Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 is applicable even in case of the goods imported free of duty and since there was short landing of the subject cargo, the petitioner as steamer agents of the ship owners was liable to penalty for the short-landed cargo under Section 116 of the Act. ( 6 ) THE identical point came up for consideration before this Court in Matter Nos. ( 6 ) THE identical point came up for consideration before this Court in Matter Nos. 1704 of 1981 and 715 of 1982 [everett (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Customs] and Matter No. 753 of 1982 [united Liner Agency of India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Collector of Customs] since reported in and it was held that Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 was applicable even to Nepal cargo which was imported free of duty for exportation to Nepal under a special treaty. Since no other point is involved in the instant writ petition, Mr. Ghosh, the learned Advocate representing the writ petitioner, refrained from making any submissions, besides praying for the stay of operation of the order that may be passed here in the light of the earlier decision of this Court. ( 7 ) IN view of my earlier decision as referred to above, the impugned order of the Deputy Collector of Customs, imposing penalty upon the petitioner under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be said to be either perverse or otherwise bad in law and consequently, cannot be interfered with by this Court, exercising Writ Jurisdiction. ( 8 ) THE Rule is, accordingly, discharged and the interim order, if any, do stand vacated. ( 9 ) THE respondents may now realise the amount of penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the impugned order by enforcement of the bank guarantee and/or bond and /or in any other lawful manner. ( 10 ) NO order is made for costs. ( 11 ) LEAVE is given to the petitioner to file the renewed bank guarantee in the Department in course of this week. ( 12 ) VERBAL prayer of Mr. Ghosh, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, for stay of operation of this order for four weeks, is considered and rejected.