Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ ofCertiorarified Mandamuscalling for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in C. No. VIII/46/23/2000-Cus., dated 6-6-2001 and to quash the same as illegal arbitrary and without authority of law and further direct the respondents to permit clearance of the imported materials covered under Bill of Entry No. 05716, dated 1-6-2001 (Advance Noting Register Serial No. 155, dated 30-5-2001) on receipting the assessed Customs duty. 2.The case of the petitioner 19 that the petitioner entered into various contracts with the foreign seller at Malaysia for the supply of RBD Palmolein in bulk. Shipments were made periodically and the price was fixed per metric tonne based on the price agreed to in the terms of the contract. Some of the consignments were shipped during March and April, 2001 and the Bill of Entries were filed before the authorities. The authorities verified the value description of the cargo and assessed the same by indicating the appropriate Customs duty payable thereon and cleared the cargo accordingly. 3.In respect of the contract entered into on 10-2-2001, it was agreed by the petitioner-importer and foreign supplier that the shipment will be during 25th May, 2001 to 31st May, 2001 and the price fixed at U.S. $ 230 C & F Tuticorin per metric tonne and the quantity to be supplied is 3000 MT. It is the further case of the petitioner that the foreign suppliers intimated that the cargo was loaded on 28-5-2000. On their request, the petitioner opened a Letter of Credit on 29-5-2001 for the value fixed. The petitioner filed bill of entry for Warehousing, B.E. No. 05716 on 1-6-2001. The Customs authorities verified the value description of the cargo and an assessment was made 1-6-2001. Subsequently, it was re-assessed on 7-6-2001 by which the duty payable was increased from Rs. 3, 04, 07, 466 to Rs. 3, 07, 36, 571/- and the petitioner was further directed to furnish a bond for Rs. 3 crores. 4.The petitioner has also executed the bond for Rs. 3 crores as directed. Subsequently, it was re-assessed on 7-6-2001 by which the duty payable was increased from Rs. 3, 04, 07, 466 to Rs. 3, 07, 36, 571/- and the petitioner was further directed to furnish a bond for Rs. 3 crores. 4.The petitioner has also executed the bond for Rs. 3 crores as directed. When the petitioner approached the third respondent for clearance on 7-6-2001 the second respondent asked the petitioner to clear the cargo by adopting the price at US $ 252.50 per M.T. C & E. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed with the prayer as stated above. 5.Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the issue involved is squarely come under Section 18 of the Customs Act. As averred in the affidavit the petitioner has furnished a bond for Rs. 3 crores, and the difference of duty between the assessment already made and now demanded of Rs. 29 lakhs. Section 18 of the Customs Act provides for provisional clearance of the goods on properly safeguarding the interest of revenue by securing the revenue, by furnishing a bond and as a matter of fact, in the present case, the petitioner has furnished a bond for Rs. 3 crores, which is over and above the difference in duty now demanded. 6.Mr. M.S. Rajasekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Customs has filed a counter and contendedinter aliathat as on date, they have not made any payment towards the bill of entry for the goods and the petitioner has to make the payment and clear the goods and if at all on the petitioner succeeding in the adjudication, he can get back the dues. 7.I heard the Counsel on either side and perused the counter filed in the above writ petitions. 8.When a statute provides for provisional assessment, the same has to be done in the manner provided in the Act and not according to the whims and fancies of the Department. As per Section 18 of the Customs Act, which provides for pending the production of such documents or furnishing of such information or completion of such test or enquiry, the goods be assessed provisionally if the importer or the exporter, as the case may be, furnishes such security as the proper officer deems fit for the payment of the deficiency, if any. 9.As far as the present case is concerned the difference of duty as stated earlier is only Rs. 29 lakhs and the security has already been furnished to them. Hence, I am of the view that the goods could very well be cleared as per Section 18 of the Customs Act. 10.The third respondent is hereby directed to clear the goods on payment of duty as assessed by the respondent on 7-6-2001 and on production of the bond as directed by the second respondent on 6-6-2001. It is open to the third respondent to proceed further to adjudicate upon the issue in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 11.With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected WMP is closed. No costs.