Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner-Company, engaged in trading of imported as well as the indigenous glass, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the action of the respondents, whereby the goods imported by the petitioner had been seized and subsequently ordered to be released on fulfilment of certain conditions. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that Glass is imported by it, which is released after payment of customs duty under the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act). The valuation of goods is guided by the data of Directorate of Valuation (for short DOV) and the customs duty was paid on the valuation of float glass imported, which is not less than then value fixed by the DOV. It is pointed out that on 10-6-2008, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short the DRI) visited the office-cum-godown premises of the petitioner, and they detained the stock of imported glass valued at Rs. 23,77,513/-, even though all the documents and record pertaining to the import of glass and the payment of the customs duty was produced. Three hard disks installed on the computers in the office of the petitioner were also taken away. Vide communications dated 13-6-2008 and 30-6- 2008, the petitioner requested for release of the goods provisionally, but the said requests were not acceded to. It is further pointed out that the petitioner imported another 10 containers of colour and clear floal class from Malaysia. They were received at Port of Import at Ludhiana. The bills of entry dated 18-6-2008 and 19-6-2008 were filed. The declared value of the goods was found to be higher than or equal to the DOV data and accordingly the assessed customs duty was paid. But, the goods were not released and on 28-6-2008, the DRI informed that the goods have been detained for further investigation. It was on 7-7-2008, the petitioner was informed that the goods detained are placed under seizure under Section 110 of the Act on the reasonable belief that the value of the same was misdeclared to evade the customs duty and on the reasonable belief that the same are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. It was on 7-7-2008, the petitioner was informed that the goods detained are placed under seizure under Section 110 of the Act on the reasonable belief that the value of the same was misdeclared to evade the customs duty and on the reasonable belief that the same are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. On 8-7-2008, vide Annexure P.9, the petitioner was conveyed that the competent authority has allowed provisional release of the goods seized under Section 110A of the Act on the following conditions :- (a) You will execute Indemnity Bond equal to the marke value. (b) You will deposit 50% of total differential duty in cash and the rest of 50% by Bank Guarantee (or by cash) on seized goods. (c) You will execute Bank Guarantee covering 10% of the Indemnity Bond value as at (a) for covering possible fine & penalty. (d) You will undertake in writing that you will not dispute the identity of the goods as recorded in the seizure memo/panchnama. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 20 lacs was got deposited by the respondents under the threat and duress and that another consignment imported vide bill of entry dated 27-6-2008 was also seized. It is thus, contended that once a declaration of value has been made, which is over the value shown in the DOV data and such declared value has been accepted by the Customs Department and the assessed duty has been paid, the only option before the DRI is to file an appeal against the said valuation and to get the assessment order set aside, but the goods cannot be seized under Section 110 of the Act. It is also contended that the conditions imposed in the communication permitting the provisional release of the goods are onerous, without any justification and are wholly illegal and justified. 3. In reply, by way of preliminary objections, it has been asserted that permission for provisional release of the goods has been granted and that alternative remedy under the Act has not been availed nor has the petitioner represented against the conditions of the provisional release. 3. In reply, by way of preliminary objections, it has been asserted that permission for provisional release of the goods has been granted and that alternative remedy under the Act has not been availed nor has the petitioner represented against the conditions of the provisional release. It is pointed out that acting on a specific intelligence that the petitioner was indulging in evasion of the customs duty by way of undervaluation of the imported sheet glass and reflective glass etc., the residential premises of the Managing Director, other Directors and various business/office premises of the petitioner at Chandigarh, Baddi and New Delhi were searched on 10-6-2008 by the teams of DRI under the authority and search warrants issued under the Act. During search, various records were resumed. Stocks valued al Rs. 23.70 lacs (on the rates disclosed by the petitioners staff) were detained from the godown of the petitioner at Chandigarh, whereas the goods worth Rs. 3.22 lacs were detained from a godown at New Delhi on 10-6-2006. It has been further pointed out that the two consignments of 10 containers containing float glass imported by the petitioner vide bills of entry dated 18-6-2008 and 19-6-2008 with declared assessable value of Rs. 16,95,939/- were detained by the DRI on 25-6-2008 for further investigation. On 28-6-2008, the petitioner was informed that he may exercise the option under Section 49 of the Act to get the detained goods de-stuffed from the containers in the premises of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Dhandario Kalan, Ludhiana. It was also pointed out that the premises of M/s. Niveda International, Kolkata, an Indentor for the petitioner, for various overseas suppliers of glass were also searched and various incriminating documents were resumed. On 7-7-2008 all the detained goods were placed under seizure under Section 110 of the Act. On 8-7-2008, the seized goods were ordered to be provisionally released subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. It has been further pointed out that the statement of Shri T.L. Verma, Managing Director of the petitioner, was recorded under Section 108 of the Act on 3-7-2008, wherein he was confronted with the evidence resumed i.e. e-mail correspondence between M/s. Niveda International and Mr. T.L. Verma, between Shri Verma and foreign suppliers and between M/s. Niveda International and Chinese Suppliers. There was evidence of Hawala transactions etc. The Managing Director of the petitioner remained evasive. T.L. Verma, between Shri Verma and foreign suppliers and between M/s. Niveda International and Chinese Suppliers. There was evidence of Hawala transactions etc. The Managing Director of the petitioner remained evasive. On 4-7-2008, another statement of the Managing Director of the petitioner was recorded under Section 108 of the Act, wherein it was stated by him that Ms. Julie was representative of M/s. Malaysian Sheet Glass, Malaysia and vide e-mail addressed to the petitioner, the petitioner was offered the price of Dark Grey Float Glass of 5 MM thickness as USD 5.40 per square metre. The Managing Director of the petitioner stated that the documents shown to him from the files resumed from the office of the petitioner and from M/s. Niveda International, are self explanatory and need no further explanation. It has been further pointed out that on 10-7-2008, a consignment of 5 containers imported by the petitioner from Thailand was cleared by the Customs on 5-7-2008 without intimating the DRI in spite of the prior intimation given to them. It was informed that the DRI, Chennai has detected a massive undervaluation in the import of Glass Sheets and has seized the goods worth Rs. 2.5 crores and asked all the four CFS under his jurisdiction to ensure every possible safeguard to accurately classify and evaluate the similar items so as to eliminate all the chances of undervaluation. All the four ports were also instructed to re-examine all the clearances of Glass Sheets in immediate past and to take remedial action immediately. 4. It is further pointed out that the data so declared by various importers forms the basis of data base available with the DOV. The clearance of goods is often done by the Customs Officers by comparing the declared value from DOV data. The DOV data is a record of import prices voluntarily declared by various importers and cannot address the situation where prices have been suppressed by majority of importers all over the country or where correct prices have not at all been reported and fed into system. It has been pointed out that the DRI has got specific intelligence that import prices were uniformly suppressed throughout the country in an organised fashion by a number of importers operating in a cartel. It is for this reason that the DOV data reflected lower import price for various types of Glass. It has been pointed out that the DRI has got specific intelligence that import prices were uniformly suppressed throughout the country in an organised fashion by a number of importers operating in a cartel. It is for this reason that the DOV data reflected lower import price for various types of Glass. It is further pointed out that during the course of investigation, it was prima facie observed from the resumed/seized documents that the petitioner was evading customs duty by resorting to undervaluation while importing various types of glass from different countries. 5. It is further alleged that the goods were allowed to be released provisionally by the competent authority on furnishing the necessary bonds/Bank Guarantee on the basis of evidence of actual transaction value, which in turn was calculated on the basis of evidence available with the DRI. Thus, it is alleged that the petitioner actually played fraud with the exchequer by presenting fabricated invoices and declaring less value for imports of glass from various countries to the Indian Customs Authorities at the time of clearance of the goods and the Customs Authorities also made assessment on the basis of those documents presented by the petitioner, whereas the petitioner never presented actual invoices/contract rates with its foreign supplier. If the petitioner had shown/declared correct value before the Indian Customs Authorities, the petitioners imports should have been assessed accordingly, but the petitioner instead of declaring the correct price played fraud with the State exchequer. 6. A replication, controverting the averments made in the written statement has been filed, whereas a short affidavit controverting the averments made in the replication has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the goods have been permitted to be imported and customs duty paid in terms of valuation by the DOV, under the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, then it is not open to the respondent authorities to seize the goods and call upon the petitioner to furnish indemnity bonds in respect of the market value of the goods seized and furnish Bank Guarantee in respect of the differential amount of duty. It is contended that once the goods have been imported, duty paid, as determined by the authorities, the goods could not have been seized on account of the alleged undervaluation of the goods subsequently. It is contended that once the goods have been imported, duty paid, as determined by the authorities, the goods could not have been seized on account of the alleged undervaluation of the goods subsequently. It is also contended that the conditions imposed for provisional release of the goods are onerous, without any nexus with the extent of the duty alleged to be evaded and, therefore, such conditions are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. 8. It is the categorical stand of the respondents in reply that the data with the DOV under the aforesaid Rules, is based upon the past imports. It is also pointed out that since all the importers have formed a cartel so as to evade the leviable customs duty, therefore, such data, which is only based upon the past transactions, cannot be relied upon being true and correct valuation of the imports. It is pointed out that the matter is under investigation in respect of extent of undervaluation. It is alleged that on the basis of documents available with the DRI, the apprehension that the goods have been undervalued, cannot be said to be totally absurd and, therefore, the authorities have a right to examine the question as to whether the goods imported have been correctly valued before the import was allowed. It is also argued that the conditions of the release are fair and reasonable, keeping in view the fact that the goods are liable to be confiscated in terms of Section 111(m) of the Act. It is further contended that the conditions, as may be prescribed by the Commissioner of Customs before provisional release of the goods in terms of Section 110A of the Act, is regulated by the Departmental Instructions contained in Chapter 7 issued on 11-9-2001. The relevant extracts of the said extracts read as under :- 3. In above situations, pending the production of such documents or furnishing of such information or completion of such test or enquiry, the proper officer of Customs may order that the duty leviable on goods be assessed provisionally. The importer (or exporter), has to execute appropriate bond and furnish requisite security to the satisfaction of officer for payment of the deficiency, if any, between the duty finally assessed and duty provisionally assessed. The importer (or exporter), has to execute appropriate bond and furnish requisite security to the satisfaction of officer for payment of the deficiency, if any, between the duty finally assessed and duty provisionally assessed. On final assessment of duty in case of goods cleared for home consumption or exportation, the amount paid provisionally is adjusted against the duty finally assessed. If the amount so paid falls short of the duty finally assessed, the importer or exporter has to pay the deficiency; however, if amount so paid is in excess of duty finally assessed, the importer or exporter is entitled to a refund, in the case of goods being warehoused, if duty finally assessed is in excess of the duty provisionally assessed, the proper officer of Customs may require the importer to execute a bond, bind himself in a sum equal to twice the amount of excess duty. On the strength of the aforesaid Instructions, it is contended that the conditions imposed for release of the goods provisionally, cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. 9. The goods are liable to be confiscated in terms of Section 111(m) of the Act, therefore, the condition of executing indemnity bond equal to the market value of the goods, cannot be said to be arbitrary. Once the goods are released to the petitioner, it shall be open to the petitioner to sell the same and, therefore, asking for indemnity bond equal to the market value, is a justified condition as in the event of order of confiscation being passed against the petitioner, the respondent-authorities could proceed to recover the amount from the person, who has furnished the indemnity bond. Similarly, the other conditions in respect of payment of duty in cash and by Bank Guarantee are also fair and reasonable as on the basis of prima facie investigation made, the DRI could reasonably form an opinion that there is evasion of duty. Similarly, requirement of furnishing the Bank Guarantee to recover the possible fine and penalty, which can be imposed in terms of the provisions of the Statute also cannot be said to be unjustified. The conditions imposed for the provisional release of the goods vide communication dated 8-7-2008, cannot be said to be onerous, unjustified or arbitrary, which may warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 10. The conditions imposed for the provisional release of the goods vide communication dated 8-7-2008, cannot be said to be onerous, unjustified or arbitrary, which may warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 10. The stand of the respondents that the goods have been undervalued, is in fact, a subject matter of adjudication process. It is open to the petitioner to establish before the adjudicating authority that the goods have been properly valued and appropriate customs duty paid thereon. However, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, it is not possible for us to go into the question of the nature of goods imported and the extent of duty payable thereon. Such questions are questions of fact and therefore, the same are required to be determined by the departmental authorities in accordance with law. 11. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.