AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed on 29th September, 1987, (being Annexure 'm' to the petition) by the Collector of Customs and despatched to the petitioners on 15th December, 1987. By the said order, the Collector of Customs purported to confiscate entire consignments imported by the petitioners. The impugned order of the Collector is directed against 540 Colour Picture Tubes imported and 500 sets of Plastic Moulded Parts imported by the first petitioner and 500 sets Printed Circuit Boards for Colour Television imported by the second petitioner. ( 2 ) THE first petitioner is a Company (hereinafter referred to as the "company") incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, the second petitioner is the sole proprietor of a concern known as Trident Electronics (hereinafter referred to as the said firm ). He is also one of the Directors of the first petitioner M/s. Trident Television Private Limited. Both the petitioners are engaged in manufacture of Colour Television duly registered with the Director of Small Scale Industries. Both the petitioners have set up Small Scale Industries. They have Central Excise Licences. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners is that they have been granted Import Licences such as Actual User Licence by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and they are eligible to import items of Open General Licence - listed in Appendix 6 of the Import Policy, 1985-88 as Actual Users. The petitioners are also eligible to import as transferee of REP Transferable Import Licence under Export Promotion Scheme for registered exporters and eligible to purchase import materials from Export House under Export House Scheme and as such they are authorised to import and/or acquire the various components and - material parts of T. V. , VCR and Electronic Typewriters and various allied parts in connection thereto. ( 4 ) IN or about July, 1987, the said firm being the second petitioner imported from Singapore 500 Sets Printed Circuit Board, Sub-Assembly, Speakers, degaussing Coil and Misc. Accessories for Colour T. V. per S. S. Indian Courier which were transhipped per S. S. Theodor Fontane. ( 5 ) THE said company being the first petitioner imported from Singapore 540 Colour Picture Tubes per S. S. Theodor Fontane. Accessories for Colour T. V. per S. S. Indian Courier which were transhipped per S. S. Theodor Fontane. ( 5 ) THE said company being the first petitioner imported from Singapore 540 Colour Picture Tubes per S. S. Theodor Fontane. ( 6 ) BOTH the aforesaid consignments arrived at Calcutta Port on or about July 20, 1987. The first petitioner and the second petitioner submitted respective Import Invoices through their Customs authorised Clearing Agents, M/s. Dutta Agency, Calcutta. They submitted along with the Import Invoice of the foreign supplier, M/s. Viraj Corporation, Singapore, Packing List, Sales Contract and all required papers and documents for clearance of the aforesaid consignments from Customs for warehousing in non-duty paid Bonded Warehouse in terms of Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appraising Officer and the Appraising Assistant Collector of Customs, after conducting necessary scrutiny of all the documents and import licences submitted by the petitioners and after necessary verification of the same and after going through the import licences eligibility of the said petitioners for importation of item of open general licence cleared the subject consignment as authorised import under Open General Licence Appendix 6, Import Policy 1985-88 and permitted the same to be stored in nonduty paid warehouse under Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said two consignments, one of the second petitioner and the other of the first petitioner were thus removed and stored to non-duty paid warehouse under Section 59 of the Customs Act. ( 7 ) IN the middle of July, 1987 the said company (the first petitioner) also imported from Singapore 500 Sets of Plastic Moulded parts for 20" Colour Television per s. s. Theodor Fontane. The said consignment arrived at the Calcutta Port on July 20,1987. The first petitioner though its aforementioned Clearing Agent submitted Bill of Entry for home consumption along with Import Invoice of foreign supplier, M/s. Asha Exporters, Singapore, packing list, sales contract and all required papers for clearnace of the consignment for home consumption. The concerned Group Appraiser and Assistant Collector of Customs assessed customs duty and permitted the goods to be cleared as authorised importation upon payment of full customs duty. The petitioners paid the customs duty as assessed under Bill of Entry for home consumption. The concerned Group Appraiser and Assistant Collector of Customs assessed customs duty and permitted the goods to be cleared as authorised importation upon payment of full customs duty. The petitioners paid the customs duty as assessed under Bill of Entry for home consumption. While the goods were being physically checked by the officers at NSD Docks, suddenly officers of the Dock Intelligent Unit (Appraising) of Collector of Customs seized the duty paid Bill of Entry and other documents. However, the goods were permitted to be removed for warehousing under Section 49 of the Customs Act. ( 8 ) ON 7th August, 1987, the officers of the Special Investigation Branch from the Office of the Collector of Customs assisted by Officers of the Enforcement Department FERA conducted search and seizure on the strength of the single search warrant having two names and addresses jointly i. e. Trident Electronics, A/2d, Kyd Street, Calcutta and Western Commercial Corporation, 30 Jawaharlal Nehru Road, 16/b, Chowringhee Mansion, Calcutta. According to the petitioners, the said firm and the said company has no connection with the said firm Western Commercial Corporation. ( 9 ) ON 7th August, 1987, the said officers conducted a search and seizure and seized from the petitioners' Madan Street Office one file containing relevant papers, 48 pieces of imported integrated circuit No. M 58485 P, 29 pieces of Tuning Block, 2 pieces of National Remote - Control Unit, 9 pieces of Upper drum for VCR and 1 piece of Micro Remote Control. ( 10 ) ALL the said items, according to the petitioners, have been duly imported under valid import licence. Duties in respect thereof have already been assessed by the Customs Authorities and duly paid by the petitioners. ( 11 ) ON the same day, the respondents also seized 140 pieces of Brother Correctable Film Ribbon, 120 pieces of Brother Multi Strike Film Ribbon and 2 pieces of Brother Colour Graphic writer, B. P. 30 from the business place of the second petitioner at No. 1/2d, Kyd Street, Calcutta 16 and served an order dated 7th August, 1987 upon the Accountant of the said firm asking not to remove, part with or otherwise deal with the said goods. ( 12 ) A summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act was issued to the second petitioner and the petitioner was interrogated. ( 12 ) A summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act was issued to the second petitioner and the petitioner was interrogated. The brother of the second petitioner Krishnagopal was also summoned on 7th August, 1987 and he appeared on 8th August, 1987 before the authorities and a statement was obtained from him. ( 13 ) ON 10th August, 1987, the second petitioner appeared before the Appraiser and he was interrogated by the said Appraisor and Deputy Collector of Customs Sri A. S. R. Nair and a statement was obtained in question and answer form and he was asked to attend on the next day also. The second petitioner again appeared on 11th August, 1987 and further statement was taken from him. He was then served with another summons dated 11-8-1987 and was directed to produce documents for years 1982-87 of M/s. Trident Television Pvt. Ltd. as well as Trident Electronics. On 18th August, 1987, the second petitioner again appeared before the Investigating Officer and further statement was obtained from him. Between August 19, 1987 and August 26, 1987 the second petitioner visited the office of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 several times but no part of the consignment was released. ( 14 ) ON 28th August, 1987, M/s. Trident Television Pvt. Ltd. the first petitioner submitted a representation to the Collector of Customs. On 4th September, 1987, Special Investigation Branch again issued summons to the part-time employee of one of the petitioners, Ujjal Shah asking for production of documents which were already in possession of the SIB. ( 15 ) ON 5th September, 1987 the second petitioner as a Director of the first petitioner addressed a letter to the Collector of Customs annexing all documents and requested him to release at least 25% of the consignment against personal bond to avoid closure of the factories. ( 16 ) SINCE the World Cup Cricket Tournament was to be staged at Calcutta after the puja vacation on 25th September 1987 the petitioners filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court whereupon 50% of the goods were released pursuant to the order of this court. Thereafter there were talks of settlement and the said writ application and the appeal filed by the petitioners against the refusal to direct release of the entire goods which had been filed subsequently, were withdrawn by the petitioners. Thereafter there were talks of settlement and the said writ application and the appeal filed by the petitioners against the refusal to direct release of the entire goods which had been filed subsequently, were withdrawn by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, this withdrawal was made on the basis of the promise held out to the petitioners and particularly because of the goods are urgently required by the petitioners during the ensuing puja festivals and in the Reliance World Cup Cricket Tournament. ( 17 ) THE case of the petitioners is that instead of reasonable or judicious loading of the value, the Collector of Customs by the order of adjudication dated September 29, 1987 enhanced the price and imposed fine to the extent of Rs. 4,14,000/- and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. He also ordered re-assessment of the price of parts and accessories imported by the petitioners at the rate as applicabble to a complete Colour Television 20" on the ground that the said parts and accessories constituted complete television 20" in SKD condition. The contention of the petitioners is that the said order is mala fide and illegal as in the last several years several hundred consignments of colour picture tubes have been cleared by the Customs authorities in terms of the provisions of the said Import Policy. The instant writ application as hereinbefore mentioned is directed against the said adjudication order. ( 18 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents the case made out is that on examination of the goods in the dock, it prima facie transpired that 500 sets of 20" colour TV of Sony. Trinitron KV 2092e brand of Japanese origin were imported in semi-knocked down condition with the original carton of Sony T. V. In addition 40 picture tubes of the same make were imported. The consignments were imported against invoice of M/s. Viraj Corporation and M/s. Asha Exports, Singapore. The address of the said firms are same and they are closely related. According to the respondents, Sony TVs are internationally reputed brand as such cannot be sold in semi-knocked down condition by the original manufacturer. The consignments were imported against invoice of M/s. Viraj Corporation and M/s. Asha Exports, Singapore. The address of the said firms are same and they are closely related. According to the respondents, Sony TVs are internationally reputed brand as such cannot be sold in semi-knocked down condition by the original manufacturer. From the mode of packing, invoicing and importation of the goods it appeared that complete TV sets were dismantled by the suppliers in Singapore and sent against three invoices in the guise of three consignments suppressing the brand name, actual make, manufacturer, name, along with the original carton, only to be assembled by the Trident Television Private Limited/trident Electronics managed by the same person. The value of the complete TV sets on the basis of the declared price of different parts is only Rs. 1397. 18 per set wheras it was found that retail price of Sony TV is Rs. 4,500/- per set. Considering the dismantling charges, documentation etc. price comes to Rs. 5,300/- per set. According to the respondents, the importers have misdeclared the value of the goods and the wholesale minimum import price of the goods. The respondents further stated that the goods being imported in SKD condition are not covered under OGL and fall under Sl. 122, Appendix 2, Part B of AM 1988 Policy. The picture tube and the deflection yoke coil are different from those covered under OGL. According to them, the goods were imported without valid licence and therefore liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and for misdeclaration of the value of the goods, the same are liable to confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents stated that as it prima facie appeared in course of investigation that the importers have unauthorisedly imported without proper licence 500 complete sets of Sony Trinitron KV 2092e Colour TV sets in SKD condition, a notice under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued. ( 19 ) THE main contentions of the respondents are that the goods are imported in SKD condition and are not covered under Import Licence and/or OGL and are consumer goods and hence not covered by the licence. It is also contended that the goods are also undervalued. ( 20 ) THE petitioners in their affidavit-in-reply contended that the three consignments are separate and the prices have been duly declared. It is also contended that the goods are also undervalued. ( 20 ) THE petitioners in their affidavit-in-reply contended that the three consignments are separate and the prices have been duly declared. They strongly denied that 500 sets of 20" Colour T. V. of Sony. Trinitron KV 2092e brand of Japanese Origin were imported in semi-knocked down condition with original carton of Sony TV and Sony TV cannot be sold in semi-knocked down condition by the manufacturer. They further denied that Sony TV sets were dismantled by the suppliers and sent against three invoices in the guise of three consignments. According to the petitioners, they have imported consignments in their individual capacities and for their individual requirements in their different factories. The second petitioner No. 1 had imported only one item i. e. Printed Circuit Board sub-assembly, speakers, degaussing coil and misc. accessories under valid REP licence which was already accepted by the Customs for clearance of the identically similar consignments of other part transferees of the said licence, while the first petitioner company had imported only two items under Open General Licence and both of them have imported the aforesaid items for the specific requirement at the different factories. Same cannot be construed to be total importation of one single petitioner to suit the contention of Customs authorities that it would if assembled, make a complete colour television. According to the petitioners, the individual components imported by the second petitioner have been brought under valid REP licence and the same are covered by Appendix 17. The items, Plastic Moulded Components and Colour Picture Tubes are imported as permitted under Open General Licence, Appendix 6, List 8 Part I of Import Policy 1985-88. ( 21 ) AT the hearing, the learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the present application is not maintainable. According to the respondents, the writ petitioners had earlier moved a writ petition on the very self-same grounds. In the said writ petition, this court passed certain interim orders on the basis whereof the writ petitioners were granted release of 50% of the goods. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that this court should not interfere inasmuch as the Customs Act being a self-contained Act provides the forum for redressal of any grievance of the importer. The writ petitioner should have exhausted the remedy available under the Act before moving the writ petition. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that this court should not interfere inasmuch as the Customs Act being a self-contained Act provides the forum for redressal of any grievance of the importer. The writ petitioner should have exhausted the remedy available under the Act before moving the writ petition. The writ petitioner thereafter withdrew the earlier petition and as such the same was dismissed and thereafter submitted to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority. The Collector after hearing the parties has passed the adjudication order which is appealable to the Central Excise, Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the second writ petition is bad in law and/or premature inasmuch as the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy provided by the Act by way of preferring an appeal to the Tribunal. It is also contended that the writ petitioners have not challenged nor can they challenge the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority in adjudicating the matter nor have they pointed out any procedural infirmities in passing the said order. ( 22 ) I am, however, unable to accept this contention. It is true that the writ petitioners moved earlier and certain interim orders were made in the said writ application. The writ petitioners also preferred an appeal against the said interim orders refusing to release the entire consignment. There is no doubt in my mind that there was some understanding between the writ petitioners and the respondents regarding, the manner and mode of assessment to be made. But for one reason or other, the respondents did not rise up to the expectation. The writ petition and the appeal arising out of such writ petition were withdrawn in the expectation that the respondents would judiciously load the value. It may be mentioned that at that time because of the ensuing World Cup, the petitioners were interested to get the release of the goods so that no delay was caused and they did not suffer any prejudice. The writ application was not dismissed on merits. It was allowed to be withdrawn to enable the parties to arrive at a settlement. This fact is recorded by the Collector in his adjudication order as follows :"12. The writ application was not dismissed on merits. It was allowed to be withdrawn to enable the parties to arrive at a settlement. This fact is recorded by the Collector in his adjudication order as follows :"12. On 25-9-1987, Shri Dwivedi, Advocate, Calcutta High Court forwarded a letter addressed to the Collector of Customs enclosed therewith a copy of the letter dated 25-9-1987 written by his client Shri Ghanshyam Chejara stating therein that he has received instructions from his client, the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and the appeal pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta; that the same will be done on re-opening of court; that as he understands that the matter is going to be settled amicably between the parties. His client waived the show cause notice so that the adjudication proceedings should be quickly settled and his client agreed for any reasonable or judicious loading of the price that might be decided at the time of adjudication proceedings. 13. In view of the above letter and undertaking, the matter was heard on 29-9-1987, as agreed waiving issuance of the show cause notice. "as the settlement failed, which was only be demonstrated or the order of adjudication, the petitioner has challenged the validity of such order. That apart the first writ petition was against the show cause notice, and the present one is against the final order. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the petitioners cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction for the second time. ( 23 ) THE next question is whether alternative remedy which has been provided under the Act is an efficacious remedy and whether such remedy completely bars the jurisdiction of this court in entertaining the second writ application. It is now well-settled that alternative remedy under the relevant statute is not a complete bar to the maintainability of the writ application. It is equally well-settled that if the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction or in violation of the rules of natural justice or it discloses an error of law apparent on the face of the record or if the impugned order is based on extraneous and mala fide consideration or the statutory remedy is not adequate or onerous the Court can invoke Article 226 of the Constitution even if there is an alternative remedy under the statue. The court can also interfere where the resort to statutory remedy would cause irreparable injury to the citizen or where the impugned order infringes on a fundamental right of a citizen or where the impugned order betrays complete non-application of mind. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground that it discloses an error of law apparent on the face of the records - error of law which would render the adjudication order invalid. It may be that the Collector had the jurisdiction to pass the adjudication order under the Act, but if such order demonstrates arbitrariness or on the face of it manifests error of law, in that event, this court can allow the writ petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction. In this case, Collector had adjudicated and passed an order which is highly prejudicial to the petitioners. If this order has to be challenged in the appropriate forum, the petitioners may not get the desired relief for long time to come. This aspect of the matter cannot be overlooked in considering whether the application is maintainable or not. The impugned adjudication order has proceeded ignoring the clear pronouncement of the Division Bench of this court. I shall deal with this aspect latter. This order, is, therefore contrary to law. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the Order of adjudication is illegal and manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable and delay would cause irreparable loss and prejudice to the petitioners. In the premises, the contention that the writ petition is not maintainable and cannot be accepted. ( 24 ) IT is then contended on behalf of the respondents that on merits also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the admitted fact in this case are that the writ petitioners submitted Bills of Entry for clearance of 540 Colour Picture Tubes and 500 sets of Plastic Moulded parts imported by the first petitioner and 500 sets of Printed Circuit Boards (Sub-assembly) along with speaker, Tweeter, Remote Control and accessories (stick serial with jack plastic clamp, metal parts, springs, Nuts washers and screws imported by the second petitioner. If all those sub-assemblies and parts are assembled together it would make a complete colour T. V. The process of assembly does not require any sophisticated technology. If all those sub-assemblies and parts are assembled together it would make a complete colour T. V. The process of assembly does not require any sophisticated technology. It can be done only with the help of a screw driver. ( 25 ) IT is also contended that this case has got two angles viz. licensing angle and valuation angle. All the aforesaid items are sub-assemblies which have been imported as O. G. L. items. It is also contended that the Collector has made the valuation on the basis of a complete T. V. and on the basis of materials on record. That is a finding on a question of fact which cannot be challenged in a writ application unless the said finding is perverse. The proper forum, if any, is the Appellate forum. ( 26 ) IT is also contended that the case of the petitioners that they are permitted to import goods in SKD condition as parts, components of T. V. or V. C. R. According to the learned Counsel it would appear from the relevant I. T. C. Policy April, 1985 to March, 1988 that the goods are consumer goods and Item 122 of Appendix 2 Part B prohibits importation of all consumer goods in SKD condition without specific licence as these goods fall under the list of restricted items. It is submitted that the instant importation in absence of any specific licence is an unauthorised importation and is liable to be confiscated. It is also contended that in any case there was under-valuation of the goods imported by the petitioners. In substance the contention of the Customs authorities is that the goods are imported in SKD condition and are not covered under OGL. These are consumer goods and accordingly not covered by the licence and secondly the goods are under-valued. I shall first deal with the contention regarding under-valuation. ( 27 ) THE charge of under-valuation is not substantiated on the facts of the case. The instances and/or examples referred to in the adjudication order with respect to the Colour Picture Tube does not indicate any model number. Number of pieces imported are also not mentioned. According to the petitioners, in the International as well as Inland Trade, the prices vary according to the quality of the goods i. e. Model number and the quantity of import. Number of pieces imported are also not mentioned. According to the petitioners, in the International as well as Inland Trade, the prices vary according to the quality of the goods i. e. Model number and the quantity of import. An importer of bulk quantity naturally enjoys a higher discount and/or advantage than an importer of small quantity. Moreover, the contract entered into by the petitioners with the foreign supplier pertains to much earlier period when the price of the spares were much lower. The subject consignments are part shipment of the contract for purchase of bulk quantity. The instances and/or examples set out in the impugned adjudication order itself reveal that the Customs Authorities are releasing Colour Picture Tubes more or less at the same price as declared by the petitioners. The respondents, in order to justify their action commented that "picture Tubes appears to be Honkong made" but in fact no Picture Tubes are manufactured in Hongkong. The respondents being creatures of statute should not have resorted to such flimsy pleas to circumvent the real issue. ( 28 ) IT has not been disputed that the respondents have at the material time been clearing the spares of Colour Television more or less at the same price as declared by the petitioners. The petitioners have annexed with the writ petition at pages 164 to 178 some of the Bills of Entry showing that the respondents were and still are clearing the spares for Colour Televisions more or less at the same price as declared by the petitioner. Thus the action of the respondents is arbitrary. The petitioners have also relied on Bill of Entry evidencing purchase of identical goods at more or less similar price. On these facts it is contended that Customs Authorities being creatures of statute are bound by their own precedence. Once the Customs authorities have accepted the value of a particular item it becomes a precedent and subsequently it cannot held that the valuation is not correct. In support of the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Sen relied on a decision of this court made in Kazaria Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Ors. , reported in 1986 (1) CLJ 231 wherein it has been held that for under-invoicing Customs authorities may refuse clearance. But, quotation at higher rate would not by itself show under-invoicing of the goods sought to be imported. Sen relied on a decision of this court made in Kazaria Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Ors. , reported in 1986 (1) CLJ 231 wherein it has been held that for under-invoicing Customs authorities may refuse clearance. But, quotation at higher rate would not by itself show under-invoicing of the goods sought to be imported. To arrive at a decision of under-invoicing the concerned authority must act reasonably when a few months earlier the Authority cleared the goods to others at the same invoice amount, the Authority cannot take the plea of under-invoicing. ( 29 ) IN Mercantile Express Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs, it has been held as follows :"the Customs now say that they are not bound by their previous decisions. Whether the doctrine of precedents applies in its full rigour to Administrative Agencies and Officers, and whether a reasonable latitude should be given to them or administrative Tribunals to correct or modify their previous decisions may still remain debatable controversy in the world of law; nevertheless I am clearly of the opinion that neither the Appraiser nor the Collector of Customs can change his mind from time to time in respect of the same articles by assessing them in the case of one importer under one section and then assessing them for another importer under different section. To allow the Customs to do so will lead to utter confusion on the very basis and principles of taxation and grave uncertainty in business and foreign trade of India. " "the Customs are bound by their own precedents in administering taxing statues involving the very basis of taxation in respect of particular article and not leave it to them to modify their own previous decisions to leave it to them to Courts or Parliament or Legislatures, as the case may be, to put the law beyond doubt. . . . Tariff rulings are in the nature of administrative directions or guides. . . . These departmental instructions, guides or rulings can always be examined by Courts of Law and if found wrong in law can be over-ruled and set aside by the Courts. " ( 30 ) IN Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. , Bombay and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. the Bombay High Court relied on the decision of Mercantile Express Co. Ltd. (supra ). " ( 30 ) IN Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. , Bombay and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. the Bombay High Court relied on the decision of Mercantile Express Co. Ltd. (supra ). The learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court observed that the observations of the Calcutta High Court that the Customs authorities were bound by their own decisions in administering taxing statutes would apply with even greater force in the case of the same assessee who is sought to be taxed differently for the same article. The Bombay High Court in the aforesaid decision also considered the case of IBM World Trade Corporation v. Union of India reported in 1980 E. L. T. 274 where the Bombay High Court held as follows :"once a finding is given by a superior authority on contentions raised before it, it is binding upon the subordinate authorities in subsequent proceedings, unless some other material is brought to their notice, which compels them to take a contrary view. The court was concerned with the levy of countervailing duty in that case. The same principle would apply to the levy of excise also. In the present case no other material was before the subordinate authorities at the time when the show cause notices were issued, which would warrant a different view being taken by the subordinate authority for either the previous or subsequent years or the same years. " ( 31 ) THE instances and/or examples set out in the Adjudication Order are mostly based on US Dollar, but the subject importation was valued at Singapore Dollar, Conversion of US Dollar into Indian Rupee and then reconversion to Singapore Dollar is not justified to prove any misdeclaration or under-valuation. The learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in Janata Traders, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, to reinforce his argument. In my view the Department has failed to establish any case of under invoicing. ( 32 ) SOME of the instances set out in the Adjudication order regarding valuation are quotations. A quotation at higher rate would not by itself show under-invoicing of the goods sought to be imported. For many reasons quotations may disclose higher rate. In my view the Department has failed to establish any case of under invoicing. ( 32 ) SOME of the instances set out in the Adjudication order regarding valuation are quotations. A quotation at higher rate would not by itself show under-invoicing of the goods sought to be imported. For many reasons quotations may disclose higher rate. It is only after the quotations are accepted and contract is concluded and actual sale takes, the price may then indicate whether there is any case of under-invoicing. In Kazaria Exports Ltd. and Ors. v. Collector of Customs and Ors. reported in 1986 (1) CLJ 231, Umesh Banerji, J. considered at length this aspect of the matter and negatived the contention of the Revenue. A higher quotation would not by itself without there being any other material or evidence justify the inference of under-invoicing. ( 33 ) I fail to appreciate how the Customs authorities can bypass the orders passed by the Tribunal dealing with the identical issues. There must be some finality somewhere. The Customs Authorities cannot ignore the decision of the Tribunal and come to a finding contrary to the decision of the Tribunal. An assessee has the right to arrange its affairs on the basis of views taken consistentlty by the Tribunal. If the authorities take different views at different times at different ports on the same set of facts, the assessee will suffer the consequence. The order of Appellate Authority is binding on the subordinate authorities even in the subsequent proceeding. The Collector has acted without jurisdiction in not considering the decision of the Tribunal. My attention is drawn to a decision of the Tribunal [susha Electronics Industries v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise - 1989 (39) E. L. T. 585 (Tribunal)] where the Tribunal rejected similar contention of the Revenue based on more or less similar facts. ( 34 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it would appear that the Customs authorities have failed to produce any evidence to prove under-valuation. In the premises, the value declared by the petitions has to be taken to be correct, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. ( 34 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it would appear that the Customs authorities have failed to produce any evidence to prove under-valuation. In the premises, the value declared by the petitions has to be taken to be correct, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. While producing evidence for under-valuation regarding Plastic Moulded parts as set out in page 10 of the Adjudication Order, the Customs authorities have taken into consideration the fact that Plastic Moulded parts contains Plastic Cabinet with front and back covers, Plastic PCB base holders, Plastic cover of the CRI sockets, Plastic cable holders, Plastic antena input sockets. But the concerned petitioner has imported only plastic cabinet with front and back covers. It is evident that there was no comparable standard to compare the prices. ( 35 ) THE Collector in his adjudcation order noted the contentions of the petitioner regarding valuation which are reproduced as under :"it is submitted by them that the factory is closed. They have also given a letter dated 25-9-1987 stating inter alia that the case may be decided after the High Court case is withdrawn, that there is no need to issue show cause notice and that the reasonable and judicious loading of value is acceptable by them since the factory is closed. The case is therefore taken up for decision. It was submitted that loading of the value from Singapore Dollars 51 to 125 for the PCB sub-assembly is too high. It is also submitted that there is licence available and the same has been accepted by the department. Regarding the speaker, it is submitted that loading from Singapore Dollar 5. 25 to 6 does not appear to be reasonable because this loading appears to be for the sake of loading only and there could not be any intention to evade duty to the extent of. 75 Singapore Dollars. It is also submitted that the proposed loading from Singapore Dollars 3. 25 to 15 for the Remote Control is also high inasmuch as item has been passed by the Customs at Singapore Dollar 8. Regarding Degaussing Coil, the price has been from 1 to 20 which appears to be high. The same plea was made for other items like accessory and miscellaneous. 25 to 15 for the Remote Control is also high inasmuch as item has been passed by the Customs at Singapore Dollar 8. Regarding Degaussing Coil, the price has been from 1 to 20 which appears to be high. The same plea was made for other items like accessory and miscellaneous. Regarding picture tube, it was submitted that it was the practice of this Custom House to allow such goods to be cleared all along. Since this is the established practice, there should not be any sudden change on it. Regarding the price of Picture Tube, it is submitted that there is importation by the Government Agency and the same are in US Dollar 50-65. In view of this, loading the goods from 136 to 230 is too high and not reasonable. It is submitted that it should be round 160 dollars or so. The same plea was made for the plastic parts. " ( 36 ) THE petitioners also relied on the invoices and orders made by the Customs authorities in respect of identical items. The adjudication authority did not take account any of the materials. The findings of the Collector are therefore perverse and cannot be sustained. ( 37 ) THE main contention of the Customs authorities is that the subject consignments are not spares. They are complete T. V. Sets in SKD condition and hence not covered under OGL. This contention is wholly without any substance. Reliance has been placed in the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta and Bros. , reported in 1983 E. L. T. 1456. The facts and contentions would appear from the judgment which are reproduced as under :"the respondents held an import licence dated July 10, 1956 permitting them to import parts and accessories of motor scooters as per Appendix XXVI of the Import Policy Book for July-December, 1956. Under the said licence, the respondents imported certain goods which arrived in two consignments, each containing 17 cases, by two different ships. According to the respondents, the goods so imported by them were motor cycle parts which their licence authorised them to import. The Customs authorities, on the contrary, held, on examinaton of the goods, that they constituted 51 sets of 'rixe Mopeds complete in a knocked down condition'. According to the respondents, the goods so imported by them were motor cycle parts which their licence authorised them to import. The Customs authorities, on the contrary, held, on examinaton of the goods, that they constituted 51 sets of 'rixe Mopeds complete in a knocked down condition'. The Deputy Collector of Customs thereupon held an enquiry in pursuance of two show cause notices issued by him. The result of the enquiry was an order under which Deputy Collector directed confiscation of the said goods with an option to the respondents to pay certain sums in lieu of confiscation and also personal penalties. That order was passed on the basis that the goods imported were not parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters permissible under Entry 295 of the Schedule to the Import Control Order but were motor cycles/scooters in completely knocked down condition, prohibited under remark II against Entry 294, a licence in respect of goods covered by it would authorise import of motor cycles and scooters. The order of the Deputy Collector dated November 19, 1957 reads as under :"on examination of the goods and scrutiny of the documents relating to the Bills of Entry stated above, it was ascertained that M/s. Tarachand Gupta and Bros. had imported 51 sets of 'rixe' Mopeds complete (except tyres, tubes and shaddles) in a knocked down condition. The total number of consignments covered by the aforesaid two Bills of Entry were sufficient to give exactly 51 sets complete Rixe 'mopeds' (except for tyres, tubes and saddles which would in any case have required a separate licence ). The packing was also such as to show that those were nothing but 'mopeds' in a disassembled condition, since each of the cases contains components relating to three mopeds. Moreover, it was found that major components such as the frames, completely fitted with electrical wires and control cables and grips, had been imported in equal numbers - All these went to show that the goods were not imported as spare parts but as complete vehicles in a knocked down condition. The goods were therefore considered to be correctly classifiable under Item 75 (2) of the I. C. T. corresponding to S. No. 294/iv of the I. T. C. Schedule. The licence under which clearance was sought, could not, therefore, be accepted. The goods were therefore considered to be correctly classifiable under Item 75 (2) of the I. C. T. corresponding to S. No. 294/iv of the I. T. C. Schedule. The licence under which clearance was sought, could not, therefore, be accepted. "the Deputy Collector rejected the respondents' contention that the two consignments which arrived in two different ships at different dates should be viewed separately, that the machines were incomplete as they were without tyres, tubes and saddles, and therefore, they could not be said to constitute motor cycles in knocked down condition. He held, on the other hand, that though the goods were not in completely knocked down condition it made no difference as the tyres, tubes and saddles were easily obtainable in India and their absence did not prevent the machines being otherwise complete. He also found that there was a trade practice under which traders were supplying motor cylces without tyres, tubes and saddles unless the purchaser specially asked for those parts. According to him, the goods could not be regarded as spare parts but were 'mopeds in disassembled condition'. ( 38 ) THE Supreme Court noted the argument that since there was a restriction in Entry 295 against imports of motor cycles and scooters in C. K. D. condition, the importer could not be allowed to do indirectly what he could not do directly. The Supreme Court repealed the contention in the following words :"the argument apparently looks attractive. But the question is what have the respondents done indirectly what they could not have done directly. In the absence of any restriction in Entry 295, namely, that a licence in respect of goods covered by Entry 295 would not be valid for import of parts and accessories which, when taken together, would make them motor cycles and scooters in C. K. D. condition, the respondents could import under their licence all kinds and types of parts and accessories. Therefore, the mere fact that the goods imported by them were so complete that when put together would make them motor cycles and scooters in C. K. D. condition would not amount to a breach of the licence or of Entry 295. Were that to be so, the position would be anamolous as aptly described by the High Court. Therefore, the mere fact that the goods imported by them were so complete that when put together would make them motor cycles and scooters in C. K. D. condition would not amount to a breach of the licence or of Entry 295. Were that to be so, the position would be anamolous as aptly described by the High Court. Suppose that an importer were to import equal number of various parts from different countries under different indents and at different times, and the goods were to reach here in different consignments and on different dates instead of two consignments from the same country as in the present case. If the contention urged before us were to be correct, the Collector can treat them together and say that they would constitute motor cylces and scooters in C. K. D. condition. Such an approach would mean that there is in Entry 295 a limitation against importation of all parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters. Under that contentions, even if the importer had sold away the first consignment or part of it, it would still be possible for the Collector to say that had the importer desired it was possible for him to assemble all the parts and made motor cycles and scooters in C. K. D. condition. Surely, such a meaning has not to be given to Entry 295 unless there is in it or in the licence a condition that a licensee is not to import parts in such fashion that his consignments, different though they may be, when put together would make motor cycles and scooters in C. K. D. condition. Such a condition was advisedly not placed in Entry 295 but was put in Entry 294 only. The reason was that import of both motor cycles and scooters as also parts and accessories thereof was permitted, of the first under Entry 294 and of the other under Entry 295. A trader having a licence in respect of goods covered by Entry 294 could import assembled motor cycles and scooters, but not those vehicles in C. K. D. condition, unless he was a manufacturer and had obtained a separate licence therefor from the Controller of Imports who, as aforesaid, was authorised to issue such a licence on an ad hoc basis. Thus the restriction not to import motor cycles and scooters in C. K. D. condition was against an importer holding a licence in respect of goods covered by Entry 294 under which he could import complete motor cylces and scooters and not against an importer who had a licence to import parts and accessories under Entry 295. If Dr. Syed Mohammed's contention were to be right we would have to import remark (ii) against Entry 294 into Entry 295, a thing which obviously is not permissible while construing these entries. Further, such a condition, if one were to be implied in Entry 295, would not fit in as it is a restriction against import of motor cycles and scooters in C. K. D. condition and not their parts and accessories. There is, therefore, no question of a licensee under Entry 295 doing indirectly what he was not allowed to do directly was importing motor cycles and scooters in C. K. D. condition under a licence under which he could import complete motor cycles and scooters only. That restriction, as already observed, applied to a licence in respect of goods described in Entry 294 and not a licensee in respect of goods covered by Entry 295. The result is that when the Collector examines goods imported under a licence in respect of goods covered by Entry 295 what he has to ascertain is whether the goods are parts and accessories, and not whether the goods, though parts and accessories, are so comprehensive that if put together would constitute motor cycles and scooters in C. K. D. condition. Were he to adopt such an approach, he would be acting contrary to and beyond Entry 295 under which he had to find out whether the goods imported were of the description in that entry. Such an approach would, in other words, be in non-compliance of Entry 95. "then the Supreme Court proceeded to hold :"the respondents' licence admittedly authorised them to import goods covered by Entry 295. They could, therefore, legitimately import, on the strength of that licence, all and several kinds of parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters. The only question, therefore, before the Collector was whether the respondents' licence covered the goods imported by them, i. e. whether the goods were parts and accessories. They could, therefore, legitimately import, on the strength of that licence, all and several kinds of parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters. The only question, therefore, before the Collector was whether the respondents' licence covered the goods imported by them, i. e. whether the goods were parts and accessories. If they were, the imports were legitimate and no question of their being not covered by the licence or the respondents having committed breach of Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act or Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act could possibly arise. What the Collector, however, did was that he put the two consignments together and held that they made up 51 rixe' Mopeds in C. K. D. condition and were, for that reason, not the articles covered by Entry 295 but articles prohibited under remark (ii) of Entry 294. But Entry 294 deals with motor cycles and scooters complete and assembled. Remark (ii) against that entry prohibits an importer who held a licence to import motor cycles and scooters from importing motor cycles and scooters in C. K. D. condition. Remark (ii) containing that prohibition had nothing to do with Entry 295 which did not contain any limitations or restrictions whatsoever against imports of parts and accessories. That being so, if an importer has imported parts and accessories, his import would be of the articles covered by Entry 295. The Collector could not say, if they were so covered by Entry 295, that when lumped together, they would constitute other articles, namely motor cycles and scooters in C. K. D. condition. Such a process, if adopted by the Collector would mean that he was inserting in Entry 295 a restriction which was not there. That obviously he had no power to do. Such a restriction would mean that though under a licence in respect of goods covered by Entry 295 an importer could import parts and accessories of all kinds and types, he shall not import all of them but only some, so that when put together they would not make them motor vehicles and scooters in C. K. D. condition. In the present case even that was not so because he would have to buy tyres, tubes and saddles to convert them into motor cycles and scooters into C. K. D. condition. In the present case even that was not so because he would have to buy tyres, tubes and saddles to convert them into motor cycles and scooters into C. K. D. condition. That would be tantamount to the Collector making a new entry in place of Entry 295 which must mean non-compliance of that entry and acting in excess of jurisdiction during the course of his enquiry even though he had embarked upon the enquiry with jurisdiction. In our view that was precisely what the Collector did. This is, therefore, not one of those cases where between two competing entries the statutory authority applied one or the other, though in error, and where a Civil Court cannot interfere. " ( 39 ) IN Collector of Customs v. Mitsuny Electronic Works, the Division Bench of this court noted the contention of the revenue and rejected similar contention that was raised in that Court and the contention of the revenue was rejected in the following words :"the first contention of Mr. Dipankar Ghosh for the Customs authorities is that if all the consignments covered by all the Bills of Entry in the case of three export houses are assembled together, there will be complete T. V. Sets and as such their import is prohibited. Such a course, however, cannot be adopted to find out whether individual licence covers the goods imported. It is a sheer coincidence that all the consignments have arrived at a time. One has to look into the respective licence. The writ petitioner may have purchased all the articles covered by all the licences but that cannot be a ground for withholding the goods alleging that complete T. V. sets have been imported, we are, therefore, unable to accept this contention of Mr. Ghosh. "similar view was also taken by Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. in Debabrata Kanjilal v. Union of India [co No. 7694 (W) of 1988] where the judgment was delivered on 29th July, 1988. ( 40 ) STRANGELY enough the decisions which have been cited before the Collector of Customs were not considered at all. A Quasi-judicial authority ought not to be allowed to act arbitrarily by refusing to take into consideration or by-pass the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court, High Courts and the Tribunals. This by itself is a serious infirmity in the order of adjudicating authority. A Quasi-judicial authority ought not to be allowed to act arbitrarily by refusing to take into consideration or by-pass the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court, High Courts and the Tribunals. This by itself is a serious infirmity in the order of adjudicating authority. The impugned order of the Collector is on the face of it contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this court referred to above. Each consignment has to be separately assessed. Even if one importer brings different items which are admittedly spare parts and components, the revenue authorities cannot take the plea that if those are assembled together, there would be complete T. V. Set. This is exactly what has been done in this particular case, notwithstanding the decisions of the Courts and Tribunals as mentioned earlier. ( 41 ) THE contention of the revenue was that those decisions have no application on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is contended that the importation in Mitsuny Electronic Works was made prior to introduction of Item 122 in Appendix 2 Part 'b'. It is also contended that the case of Tarachand Gupta (supra) has no application inasmuch as the goods imported in that case were admittedly complete knocked down condition C. K. D. , whereas in the instant case the goods imported are semi-knocked down condition S. K. D. which fairly fall under new Item in Appendix 2 Part 'b'. The learned Counsel has sought to distinguish the case of Debabrata Kanjilal (supra) on the ground the question involved in that case whether the Directorate of Intelligence can make second seizure and initiate further adjudication proceedings in respect of the very same goods which had been released by the proper Customs authorities. The case of Susha Electronics is not also applicable to the facts of this case. The learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal found other components if combined would not constitute a complete T. V. This distinction is without any difference. ( 42 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter. Three consignments are the subject-matter of the writ application. Two of these consignments have been imported by one of the writ petitioners and one consignment by the other. The first petitioner is a limited company who is a separate entity from its Directors. The second petitioner is one of the Directors of the first petitioner. Three consignments are the subject-matter of the writ application. Two of these consignments have been imported by one of the writ petitioners and one consignment by the other. The first petitioner is a limited company who is a separate entity from its Directors. The second petitioner is one of the Directors of the first petitioner. Even if he is a Director of the first petitioner, in law and in fact, he has been carrying on business separately as sole proprietor of a concern. Both the petitioners cannot be clubbed together for the purpose of looking at the nature and contents of the consignments. Merely because the second petitioner is connected with the first petitioner that would not be a ground for holding that in law or in fact they are one entity. It is absolutely mis-convceived to suggest that all the three consignments put together imported by two different petitioners in two different capacities would make 500 Complete T. V. Sets. When not only are they different entities but they have their separate S. S. I. registration certificates and factory at different places. It also sounds very surprising that as against 540 Colour Picture Tubes in one consignment there are 500 pieces of spares in other two consignments. How could then 40 picture tubes be left out of consideration. ( 43 ) THE Colour Picture Tubes and Plastic Moulded Parts have been imported under Open General Licence. The first petitioner is eligible for such import. It is urged that the 20" Colour Picture Tubes do not meet the broad outline specifications as specified in the Import Policy, the petitioners have got the said Colour Picture Tubes tested by Electronics Testing Laboratories (East), Department of Electronics, Government of India who have issued a certificate that the said Colour Picture Tubes meet the broad outline specifications prescribed in the Import Policy 1985-88 for import under Open General Licence. The said report, though annexed with the Writ application, the same has not been challenged by the Customs authorities. ( 44 ) THAT apart several import licences have been annexed to the petition which would clearly demonstrate that the identical similar consignments were allowed to be cleared in case of other part transferee of the same licence and restricted items as mentioned in Appendix 2b. ( 44 ) THAT apart several import licences have been annexed to the petition which would clearly demonstrate that the identical similar consignments were allowed to be cleared in case of other part transferee of the same licence and restricted items as mentioned in Appendix 2b. It is inconceivable that import of identical items in respect of identical licence is found authorised while it is imported by another transferee of a part of the same licence and is unauthorised in respect of the first petitioner which is transferee of the remaining part of the same licence. This manifests clear bias, motive and mala fide which cannot be also ruled out. ( 45 ) THE action of the Collector of Customs is not only contrary to the law as prevalent at the material time but it is arbitrary inasmuch as it has not been disputed that similar goods had been imported earlier and were released by the Customs authorities. Several Bills of Entry have been relied on by the petitioner. The importation in respect of those Bills of Entry were made before the import of the present consignments. Although the earlier consignments were released, the subject consignments had been seized on the ground of, inter alia, misdeclaration. ( 46 ) IT is not in dispute that in respect of the same licence subsequent to the subject import, the Calcutta Customs had cleared identical goods without raising any objection. The inference is irresistable that there was a deliberate attempt not to release the goods in one pretext or other by raising frivolous and untenable objections. ( 47 ) THERE is another aspect of the Import Licence submitted for Customs clearance. The description for items eligible for import reads as follows :" This licence is valid for import of raw materials, components, consumable stores and packing materials required in terms of Para 30 (1) of the Import Policy (Vol. II) for A. M. 78 subject to the conditions laid down therein. "one of the conditions of the licence is that "this licence will not be valid for import of items covered under Appendix 2 Part A of AM 85-88 Import Policy. II) for A. M. 78 subject to the conditions laid down therein. "one of the conditions of the licence is that "this licence will not be valid for import of items covered under Appendix 2 Part A of AM 85-88 Import Policy. ( 48 ) THE contention of the respondent Customs Authorities is that the relevant I. T. C. Policy April 1985 to March 1988 would show that the goods are consumer goods and Item 122 of Appendix 2 Part B prohibits importation of all consumer goods in SKD condition without specific licence as these goods fall under the list of restricted items. It is submitted that the instant importation in absence of any specific licence is an unauthorised importation and is liable to be confiscated. ( 49 ) IN my opinion, the aforesaid contention of the Customs authorities is not tenable because firstly, the description of the licence permits import of items of 1977-78 policies and what is prohibited in the licence is only Appendix 2 Part A and not Appendix 2 Part B items as contended by the respondent Customs authorities. Secondly, as contended by the respondents that the licence should have been specific for authorised importation. This licence is specific inasmuch as it only excludes importation of items covered under Appendix 2 Part A what is not prohibited must be deemed to have been authorised by the licence. Therefore import of Appendix 2 Part B items is permitted while only items of Appendix 2 Part A are specifically not permitted as restricted. ( 50 ) IN my view, the Import Policy did not place any restriction regarding import of O. G. L. items under Open General Licence and the import of restricted items against valid licence. Even if the O. G. L. Items and restricted items put together would make complete T. V. Sets, the respondents cannot consider such goods notionally assembled as T. V. Sets for the purpose of finding out whether the import was authorised or not. When the Policy permits import of all components of T. V. Sets, some against licences and some under Open General Licence, the Collector has no jurisdiction or authority to object to the clearance of the O. G. L. items on the ground that those items if clubbed together with other items imported against licences would constitute complete T. V. Sets under S. K. D. condition. In this case, there was an added difficulty on the part of the respondents as indicated earlier because two different entities have imported different types of items and unless anything contrary is shown by cogent evidence, the apparent must be taken to be real. ( 51 ) ANOTHER fact has to be mentioned. The definition of consumer goods for the purpose of Import Policy can only mean consumer goods which can directly satisfy human needs without further processing. Components imported by the concerned petitioners would not directly satisfy human needs. Further processing would be required before a complete T. V. set can come into existence. It cannot, therefore, be held that the components imported are consumer goods within the meaning of the Import Policy. ( 52 ) THAT apart, a question still remains. One department of the Government i. e. the Customs authorities purported to hold that such goods if clubbed together would make complete T. V. Sets and the import duty is sought to be levied on that basis. If this contention is correct then there cannot be any question of further manufacture or processing of the goods by the importers. However, in the instant case, after the goods are imported, the same are processed under valid licence issued by the Central Excise authorities, another department of the Government, and excise duty is paid by the petitioners according to the specified rate. If the goods are taken to be complete T. V. Sets, then the question of payment of excise duty cannot and should not arise which would tantamount to double taxation. It may also be pointed out that for the purpose of valuation and imposition of the Customs duty, the goods as they are found within the Customs barrier should be taken into account. An imaginary or notional assembly of all these different consignments of two different importers for the purpose of holding that complete T. V. sets have been imported, cannot be sustained. It is only after those different components are processed in the factories of the concerned petitioners, the complete T. V. sets would be manufactured and not before that. ( 53 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid it must be held that the goods alleged to have been imported in SKD condition are covered under OGL and are also covered by the licence. ( 53 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid it must be held that the goods alleged to have been imported in SKD condition are covered under OGL and are also covered by the licence. It must also be held that the department has failed to establish that the goods are under valued. ( 54 ) IN the result, this application is allowed. The order of adjudication dated 29th September 1987 passed by the Collector of Customs is set aside and quashed. The Collector of Customs is directed to pass a fresh order of assessment assessing the subject goods in the list of Bills of Entry and other evidences produced by the petitioner regarding the valuation of the subject goods. The Collector of Customs will in particular take into account the assessable value determined by the Customs Authority in respect of the similar consignments before or after the importation of the subject goods. Upon assessment being made, the duty already paid for release of the 50% of the subject goods shall be adjusted and the balance duty shall be paid by the petitioner. The goods shall be released within four days after the order of adjudication is made by the Collector of Customs. Let a fresh order be passed within three weeks from the date of communication of this order.