TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. ( 1 ) BY consent of the parties this writ petition is taken up for hearing. Mr. Sarkar learned counsel also points out to me that there is already a direction to this effect in my earlier order. In this writ application the writ petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the Respondent No. 1, Commissioner of Customs to act in accordance with law and to implement the order dated 24-8-1995 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern [bench], without any further delay and also for a direction on the respondents to forthwith release the goods being 1. 6,000 pieces of 'f. K. Brand' Pillow Block Bearings against provisional assessment and furnishing of P. D. Bond without any further delay. The facts leading to the filing of this application are stated as follows : on or about 7th May, 1994 the petitioner company entered into a contract with. CAP Enterprise Company of Hongkong for the supply of 1,21,000 pieces of 'f. K. Brand' Pillow Block Bearings (hereinafter referred to as the said goods ). On or about 2-8-1994 the said goods arrived at the Port of Calcutta, whereupon the petitioner duly filed Bill of Entry for home consumption with all related papers, import documents including sales contract, Invoices and packing list etc. ( 2 ) SINCE the goods were not released, the writ petitioner moved an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on or about the 19th September, 1994 inter alia, praying for the reliefs as mentioned in the petition. ( 3 ) UPON the said application being moved before the Apex Court of our country on 3-10-1994 an order was passed to the following effect:"shri Ashok Sen, learned senior counsel for the petitioner places before us a copy of the order dated 5-2-1992 made in Writ Petition No. 45 of the 1992 by this Court and prays for making an order in the same terms. The submission of the learned counsel is that this Writ Petition is similar and involves for decision of the same point. The submission of the learned counsel is that this Writ Petition is similar and involves for decision of the same point. In our opinion, an order of the kind shown to us having already been made by this Court in some earlier writ petitions, it is not necessary to entertain any further writ petition directly in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution as it is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate High Court for an order of the kind shown to us, in matters which are stated to be similar. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file the same in the appropriate High Court. "after the order of the Supreme Court was passed, the writ petitioner received the purported show cause notice which was issued on 20-9-1994 by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, SIB, inter alia, alleging why the value of the goods shall not be determined on the basis of the value as indicated in Column (3) of Paragraph 7 (f) of the show cause notice and why the subject goods shall not be confiscated under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penal action shall not be taken against the petitioners under Section 112 (a) of the said Act. The writ petitioner has admittedly replied to the said show cause notice. A personal hearing was also given to the writ petitioner. ( 4 ) BY an order dated 24-12-1994 the Commissioner of Customs Calcutta, passed an order by rejecting the submissions of the writ petitioner and confirmed that the said goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act and the writ petitioner was liable to pay penalty under Section 112 (a) of the said Act. The Commissioner of Customs also imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by this order the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, inter alia, praying for reliefs as contained in the Memorandum of Appeal. In the said appeal a stay application was also filed by the writ petitioner on 24-8-1995. 20,000/- under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by this order the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, inter alia, praying for reliefs as contained in the Memorandum of Appeal. In the said appeal a stay application was also filed by the writ petitioner on 24-8-1995. ( 6 ) THE CEGAT after hearing the parties disposed of the appeal and application by passing an order to the effect that as the facts and circumstances of the writ petitioner's case were identical to the facts and circumstances of another case viz. , ACME Trading Co. v. Collector of Customs which had already been decided by the Tribunal on 23-5-1995; the appeal was allowed and the order of the Adjudicating Authority was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority in the same terms and conditions as was done by the Tribunal in the case of. ACME Trading Co. A specific direction was given by the CEGAT to the effect that after remand to the Adjudicating Authority the matter shall be disposed of within 3 months from the date of passing of the said order. It is not in dispute that the Adjudicating Authority did not comply with the direction made by the CEGAT to dispose of the matter within the time specified in the order of remand. Mr. Sarkar appearing on behalf of the Customs Authority also admitted before me that no final order has yet been passed by the Adjudicating Authority in spite of the order of the Tribunal in which a specific direction was given to the Adjudicating Authority to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receiving a copy of the order of the Tribunal. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Sarkar submits before me that if three weeks time is granted to the Authority, final order can be passed within such time. Mr. Sen, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, did not raise any objection as to the grant of extension of time to pass a final order in compliance with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, three week's time is granted to the Adjudicating Authority to finally dispose of the matter in accordance with law and in accordance with the direction made by the Tribunal in its order. Mr. Accordingly, three week's time is granted to the Adjudicating Authority to finally dispose of the matter in accordance with law and in accordance with the direction made by the Tribunal in its order. Mr. Sen however, contends that since 1994 when the order of remand was passed, this case is lying undisposed of and therefore, there should be an interim order directing the Authorities to release the goods in terms of the order of the Supreme Court passed on 5-2-1992 in the case of (Sheheol Booring v. Union of India and Ors.) which is annexed at page 35 of the writ application. In the year 1992 the Supreme Court of India had passed an order to release the goods in question in the following manner :-"if such a provisional assessment is not made, then immediately after the expiry of two weeks from date of service of this order, the goods shall be released upon payment by the petitioner of the Customs duty on the basis of the valuation in the Bill of Entry and furnishment of Bond payment of any duty on a value of 50% in excess of the declared value. "mr. Sen submits that in terms of this direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the goods in question should be released. ( 8 ) IT is true that at the time of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court show cause notice was not issued by the Authorities to the writ petitioners but considering the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the fact that the order of the Adjudicating Authority was set aside by the CEGAT and considering the fact further that the order of CEGAT to the Adjudicating Authority in the year 1994 to dispose of the matter within 3 months from the date of receiving a copy of its order was not followed and after the order of remand no final order has yet been passed by the Adjudicating Authority, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case as stated above the interim direction for release of the goods in the manner passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 5-2-1992 in the case of Sheheol Booting v. Union of India and Ors. should also be made in this case. should also be made in this case. Accordingly, a direction is given to the Commissioner of Customs to release the goods in the following manner :"the goods in question shall be released upon payment by the petitioner of the customs duty on the basis of the valuation in the Bill of Entry and furnishment of Bond payment of any duty on a value of 50% in excess of the declared value. " ( 9 ) MR. Sarkar appearing for the Customs Authority submits that in the facts and circumstances of this case the bank guarantee should be directed to be furnished by the writ petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the fact that the direction made by the CEGAT in the year 1994 directing the Adjudicating Authority to dispose of the matter pending before him within three months from, the date of receiving a copy of the order of remand has not been followed, I am of the view that the writ petitioner is entitled to release the goods in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of by the following direction :-" (a) The proceedings pending before the Adjudicating Authority affirmed, shall be completed and disposed of within three weeks from the date of communication of this order as prayed by Mr. Sarkar. (b) The goods shall be released upon payment by the writ petitioners of the customs duty on the basis of the valuation in the Bill of Entry and furnishment of Bond Payment of any duty on a value of 50% in excess of the declared value. "with this above direction this writ application is disposed of. Before I part with this order, I make it clear that this writ application is being decided today on the prayer of Mr. Sarkar that was made on the other day that he will rely on the records only and shall not file any affidavit in opposition to this writ application. ( 10 ) SINCE no affidavit in opposition to this writ application has been filed, allegations made in the writ petition, however, shall not be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents. ( 11 ) MR. Sen has drawn by attention to another aspect of this matter. ( 10 ) SINCE no affidavit in opposition to this writ application has been filed, allegations made in the writ petition, however, shall not be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents. ( 11 ) MR. Sen has drawn by attention to another aspect of this matter. Relying on (Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. , he submits that some strictures to the Adjudicating Authority should be given as the Adjudicating Authority has not yet complied with the direction made by the CEGAT which is binding on the Adjudicating Authority. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case I do not feel interested to give some strictures on the Adjudicating Authority.