Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The petitioners had filed the present petitions praying for quashing Panchnamas dated 25-4-2006 and 26-4-2006 respectively and for a direction to the respondent to release the goods lying at the factory of the petitioners. 2. After notice to the respondent, on 15-6-2006, following order was passed : A file containing the reasons for conducting the search at the premises of the petitioner has been produced in Court. We have perused the same and find that before conducting the search at the premises of the petitioner, reasons were duly recorded. The file has been returned to the counsel for the respondent. Adjourned to 18-7-2006 for arguments. In the meantime, it is directed as under : (i) The goods, which are lying seized in the factory of the petitioner, on which duty had been paid at the time of import thereof, shall be released to the petitioner on his furnishing bank guarantee to the extent of duty leviable on the goods by assessing the value thereof @ US$ 1000 per metric ton. However, the amount of duty already paid by the petitioner on these goods shall be reduced. (ii) As far as the goods lying at the port are concerned, the same shall be released to the petitioner on payment of duty on the value of the goods, as declared by the petitioner, and complying with other formalities for release of goods. The petitioner will be further required to furnish bank guarantee of difference of duty in case the value of the goods is assessed @ US $ 1000 per metric ton. (ii ) Seizure of the bank account of the petitioner shall be released forthwith. The above arrangement is by way of interim measure. However, the petitioner shall abide by final order determining his liability in appropriate proceedings under the Act (subject to his statutory remedy). Attested copy of the order be given to the Counsel for the parties by the Bench Secretary under his signatures. 3. The above arrangement is by way of interim measure. However, the petitioner shall abide by final order determining his liability in appropriate proceedings under the Act (subject to his statutory remedy). Attested copy of the order be given to the Counsel for the parties by the Bench Secretary under his signatures. 3. The sum and substance of the order passed by this Court after notice to the respondent was that the duty was to be assessed by assessing the value of the goods @ US$ 1000 per metric ton and the same were to be released to the petitioners on furnishing of bank guarantee to that extent, as reduced by the amount of duty already paid or payable as per the invoice presented by the petitioners. This arrangement was made as an interim measure subject to any final order being passed in appropriate proceedings determining the amount of duty payable by the petitioner. 4. On 21-7-2006, when the cases were taken up, Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in spite of an interim order passed on 15-6-2006 by this Court in the presence of Counsel for the respondent, the goods have not been released to the petitioners. Accordingly, Joint Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana was directed to appear in person on 25-7-2006 to show cause as to why proceedings of contempt be not initiated against him. 5. Counsel for the petitioners informed that in spite of clear directions of this Court for release of the goods by taking the bank guarantee to the extent of duty leviable on the goods by assessing the value thereof @ US$ 1000 per metric ton, the respondent, vide communication dated 5-7-2006, directed the petitioners to furnish bank guarantee of 25% of the market value of the seized goods in addition to the bank guarantee, as directed by this Court vide order dated 15-6-2006. The relevant extract of that communication is reproduced below : (i Furnishing of a BG for the entire differential duty between the declared value and the value provisionally assessed at USD 1000 PMT; (ii Furnishing of a BG of 25% of the market value of the seized goods covering possible redemption fine and personal penalty; (ii Execution of an indemnity bond covering market value of the seized goods; (iv Furnishing of an undertaking in written that party will not challenge the identity of the goods either in the adjudication proceedings or during the prosecution, if any. 6. On 25-7-2006, Shri Dheeraj Rastogi, Joint Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana appeared in person and filed his affidavit. Prima facie finding that the order passed by this Court on 15-6-2006 has been violated, further opportunity was given to the said officer to file his affidavit. 7. As far as merits of the case are concerned, after hearing counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to make order dated 15-6-2006 to be absolute, as admittedly, the matter is being investigated by the respondent by recording the statements of the partner of the petitioner-firms and other persons and on the basis thereof, appropriate proceedings shall be taken against the petitioners by assessing the true value of the goods or any other action in accordance with law, against which the petitioners will have remedies as are available to them under the Customs Act, 1962. 8. As far as violation of the order passed by this Court on 15-6-2006 is concerned, clear direction of this Court was that the goods lying seized in the factory of the petitioners, on which duty has been paid at the time of import, were to be released on furnishing bank guarantee to the extent of difference of duty leviable by assessing the value of the goods @ US$ 1000 per metric ton, reducing therefrom the duty already paid by the petitioner, whereas the goods lying at the port were concerned, the duty, as assessed by the petitioners, was to be paid and bank guarantee of the difference in duty leviable by assessing the value thereof @ US$ 1000 per metric ton was to be furnished. As against this, vide communication dated 5-7-2006, the respondent put another condition for furnishing of bank guarantee of 25% of the market value of the seized goods in addition to the conditions put in by this Court which, in our view, is prima facie , contemptuous. 9. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to register these cases as Civil Contempt Petitions by changing cause title as Court on its own motion versus Dheeraj Rastogi, Joint Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana. 10. List the matter for further hearing on 13-10-2006 before appropriate Bench, as per roster. 11. We request learned Advocate General, Haryana to assist the Court either himself or by deputing some other Law Officer. Let a copy of the paper book be supplied to learned Advocate General, Haryana by the Registry.