Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- The above two writ petitions are filed by the petitioner against the very same respondents.W.P. No. 1285 of 2001 is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to order provisional release of the imported goods detained at Central Warehousing Corporation, Coimbatorerelating to assessed Bill of Entry No. 111, dated 4-10-2000 and 654 rolls ofPU sheets detained at the petitioner's godowninBhiwandi, Mumbai. 2.W.P. No. 1286 of 2001 is filed for issuance of writ of mandamusdirecting the respondents 2 and 3 to permit the 5th respondent for re-export of 8 containers arrived at Cochin Port on 14-10-2000 fromKoreaat the cost of the petitioner. 3.The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner imported during thelastone year 35 consignments ofPolyurethane(PU) sheets and Poly Vinyl Chloride(PV)sheets used as foot wear insoles through Cochin Port and the containers were transshipped from Cochin Port to Inland Container Depot(ICD)at Coimbatore. 4.It is thefurther case of the petitioner thatPU sheets andPVsheets are mainly imported from Taiwan and China that the quality of the goods importedfromTaiwan will be superior and consequently the price will be almost double to the price of the goods imported from China, that however during the last one year the price of the goods are constant, that if the goods are imported from China, the price will be 0.30 US $ and if the same are from Taiwan, the price will be 0.65 US $ per metre length. 5.It is the case ofthe petitioner that the clearing agent of the petitioner filed Bill ofEntry No. 111, dated 4-10-2000 before theCustoms authority atICD, Coimbatore;that the same wasassessedafter proper examination of the goods and verification of the relevant documents like, Bill of Lading, Foreign Supplier Invoiceetc.and the petitioner paid the assessed customs duty and got the goods released that the petitioner stored the goods at Central Warehousing Corporation, Coimbatoreon 4-10-2000 itself, that the very next day on 5-10-2000 the officers of the Central Excise Department, Coimbatoresearched the residential premises of the petitioner and the godownatBhiwandithat 654 rolls of PU sheets were alsoexamined andaftertaking sample pieces the 654rolls ofPUsheets at Bhiwandi godown were detained underMahazaron 6-10-2000 by the 6th respondent on instructions from the 3rd respondent that the officers attached to the 3rd respondent the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Coimbatore, detained the goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 111, dated 4-10-2000 kept at CentralWarehousing Corporation, Coimbatore on 27-11-2000. 6.It is the further case of the petitioner that on 14-10-2000 the consignments of goods imported from Taiwan arrived at Cochin Port that the 5th respondent at the instance of the 3rd respondent not only refused to transship the containers toICDCoimbatore but also detained them at Cochin Port that the request of the petitioner to transship the container to ICDCoimbatorewere not considered by the 5th respondent and the request of the shippinglines, steamer agents and the distributors to re-export the containers for the reason of incurring heavy demurrage, ground rent and deterioration of the qualityof the items is of no avail, that after prolonged request and approach of the concerned authorities the petitioner by their letter dated 23-11-2000 requested the second respondent to provisionally release the goods detained which aresubject matter of Bill of Entry dated 4-10-2000, that only after that aMahazarhas been prepared and a detention order was made on 27-11-2000 that again by letter dated 29-11-2000the petitioner requested for provisional release, which was followed by another letter dated 8-12-2000 but of no avail, that on 22-12-2000, the 4th respondent issued a communication statingthatthe duty has been paid adopting the assessable value at 1.02 US $ per metre and for release of the goods, the4th respondent directed the petitioner to execute a bond forRs.9, 96, 410 with Bank guarantee forRs.2, 50, 000, that the said value was arrived at taking into consideration of the retailmarket price of the goods asRs.220/-per metre that in the Bill of Entry, the price was mentioned as 0.35 US $permetre and that similarly the petitioner also requested the 5th respondent to re-export theconsignment by their letter dated 22-12-2000 and 23-12-2000. Hence the writ petition has been filed for the relief as stated above. 7.This Court by its interim order dated 21-1-2001 directed the respondents to release the goods which is as follows : "Learned Counsel for the petitioner conceded that interest ofthe Revenue could well be safeguarded as provided in the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulation, 1963 and he is prepared to safeguard the interest of the Revenue by paying 20% of the difference between the duty paid and sought to be levied and furnishing bond for balance amount as contemplated in the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulation, 1963 and he has also argued very elaborately about the loss and hardship sustained by the petitioner because of the impugned detention order. In view of the hardship said to have been caused to the petitioner, by safeguarding the interest of the Revenue, the respondents are directed to release the goods by accepting 20% of the differential duty between 0.36US$and 1.04US$ as claimed and also on the petitioner executing a bond for the balance amount of the differential duty." 8.When the matter is taken up for final order learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr.Jayachandransubmitted that the interim orderof this Court dated 21-2-2001 could very well be considered as a final order in the writ petition since the interest of the Revenue is sufficiently safeguarded by the said order. 9.He further contended that in the interimorder dated 21-2-2001 there is no mention about the release of the goods of 654 rolls ofPUsheets which has been detained atBhiwandiunderMahazardated 6-10-2000 by the 6th respondent. The same order may also be passed inrespect of the said goods by safeguardingthe interest of the Revenue for which course of action thelearned Additional CentralGovt.StandingCounselappearing for the respondenthasno objection. Hence in respect of the goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 111, dated 4-10-2000 the interim order dated 21-2-2000 would be treated as final order. 10.In respect ofthe goods detained atBhiwandiby the Superintendent of Central Excise(Preventive), KalyanDivisionMumbaiIV underMahazardated 6-10-2000 a direction is issued to the respondent to release the goods by accepting 20% of the differential duty between 0.36US $and 1.04 US $ as claimed and also on the petitioner executing a bond for the balance amount of the differential duty. 11.With the abovesaid directionW.P. No. 1285 of 2001 is disposed of. 11.With the abovesaid directionW.P. No. 1285 of 2001 is disposed of. 12.So far asW.P. No. 1286 of 2001 is concerned it is the case of the petitioner that on 14-10-2000 eight containers ofPVandPUsheets imported by the petitioner from Taiwan arrived at Cochin Port but at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the 5th respondent detained the goods at Cochin Port, that the permission sought for to transship the container toICDCoimbatorewas not heeded, that the officials of the 5th respondent broke open the containers and conducted examination of the goods without the knowledge of the petitioner that it is learnt that according to the appraising officials report the goods found were Vest Fabric which is freely importable withrate of duty at 12% whereasthe goods described in the Bills of Lading as Flock Fabric(PU/PVsheets) from Korea with rate of duty at 57% and the very same episode is repeated in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition No. 1285 of 2001 as to the approach made by the petitioner and the shipping lines, steamer agents and distributors. 13.It is the further case of the petitioner that so far asthe goods which are subject matter of the present writ petition are concerned no detentionorderorMahazarhasbeen issued till date. The goods were detained as early as first week of October 2000. After innumerable requests no orderhasbeen passed or permission has been given tore-export or the goods have been cleared. 14.It is alsothe case of the petitioner that under the guise of enquiry and investigation, the goods were detained, for more than 3 months, the petitioner lost their capital, theirprestigeis collapsed, their credibility is damaged, that the demurrage charges atCoimbatoreand Cochin mounted and became double the value oftheimported goods, that the petitioner has to face problems with the container owners, the supplier ofmaterial and other litigations. Hence the prayer for re-export of the containers. 15.The respondent filed a counter contendinginteraliathat the petitioner in their Bill of Entry have declared that the goods imported are intended to be used as'insole'in the shoe making industry; that theCLRIis of the opinion on examination of the sample taken out fromthe goods imported by the petitioner that the subjectmaterialcannot beused as insole in shoe making; that in the light of the CLRI report the petitioner undervalued the goods. 16.According to the respondent, the reason for detention is that the goods were undervalued; that the importer has availed SAD exemption for the goods prior to 21-3-2000 bymisdeclaringthatthe goods will be sold in a place where sales tax is leviable, but actually sold the same in sales tax exempted States; thatthe value of the goods for which SAD has been availed would be approximatelyRs.26lakhs; that the goods imported prior to 31-3-2000required Special Import Licence(SIL)but were cleared without producing a Special Import Licence; that theCLRIis ofthe opinion that the goods imported cannot be used for the purpose declared by the importer and thatthe authorised signatory of the petitioner is ExCOFEPOSAdetenu. 17.It is the case of the respondent that itis found on enquiry that the importedPUcloths are sold in the retailatRs. 220/-persq.metrebutthe declared value isRs.16approximately (0.36 US$)andadjudicationis under consideration and in respect of the goods covered by Billof Entry No. 111, dated4-1-2000 a show cause notice has also been issued. With these allegations the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 18.Mr.Jayachandran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended thatthe one and only reason mentioned in the showcausenoticedated 23-1-2000 which is issued in respect ofBillof EntryNo. 111, dated 4-1-2000 is only the undervaluation and, the Customs authorities have detained the goods taking the law into their hands withoutfollowingthebasicprinciple and fundamental rules and not even a detention order is passedor served on the petitioner till date. The respondent harassed the petitioner on the simple ground that the goods are undervalued. The contemporaneous clearance by the Customs Authorities would prove that the goods are correctly valued andfurtherthe goods are not contraband but are importable by open general licence and because of the attitude ofthe respondents in detaining the goods from October, 2000 onwards, the petitioner is not in a position toclearthe goods because of the huge amount of demurrage, ground rent etc. 19.The learnedCounsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court inVijayrajv.Collector of Customs, whichhas been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Courtin Writ Appeal No. 164 of1991, dated 21-2-1991. 20.I heard the Counsel on either side and perused the materialon records. 21.Admittedly the goods imported by the petitioner are not contraband goods nor goods covered under the negative list either. The goods are freely importable and are imported under Open General Licence. 20.I heard the Counsel on either side and perused the materialon records. 21.Admittedly the goods imported by the petitioner are not contraband goods nor goods covered under the negative list either. The goods are freely importable and are imported under Open General Licence. As seen from the show cause notice as well as the counter affidavit of the respondents, the only allegation is that the goods have been undervalued. Even if it is considered as a mis-declaration so asto undervalue the goods, ofcourseit is not the case of either side, I am of the considered view thatthese allegations cannot be a ground for refusing permission to re-export the goods. Whatever the action, the respondentsare contemplating, it is very well open to the respondents to initiate and complete the same and such contemplated action does not have any bearing or relation to the goods which are sought tobe re-exported, particularly when it istheadmitted case of the respondents thatthe container was broken open, the sample had also been drawn from the container and the sample has been sent for analysis to various agencies includingCLRIand reports have been received from them. Therefore, reserving the right of the respondents to take action against the importer, I do not think that there is any impedimentin directing the re-export of the goods. The petitioner, would however, give an undertaking and personal bond, to subjectthemselves to any action that the respondents may initiate and also to bind themselves to the ultimate adjudication, of course subject to the right to challenge the said order as per the provisions of the Act. 22.The writ petition is accordingly allowed as prayed for. Consequently W.M.P. No. 1769 of 2001 is closed.