Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions relate to the import of raw silk by the petitioners through Chennai Port from various places of Origins, namely, Uzbekistan, China and Vietnam. Out of these writ petitions, W.P.Nos.27719, 27720, 28395 and 28452 of 2010 are relating to import of raw silk from Uzbekistan, W.P.No.28009 of 2010 is relating to import of raw silk from China and W.P.Nos.28010 and 28451 of 2010 are relating to Vietnam origin. 2. These writ petitions are filed for a direction against the respondents to hold that the contracted value, covered under various contracts, payable and paid to the supplier of the imported goods is the transaction value, as defined under section 14(1) of the Customs Act, as amended by the Notification dated 10.09.2007, which has come into effect from 10.10.2007. 3. It is admitted that all the commodities have reached Chennai Port. In respect of the import of raw silk from Uzbekistan regarding the petitioner in W.P.No.27719 of 2010, it has been stated that earlier the goods were cleared by the respondents by accepting the bill of entry declaring the value at 14.10 US $ per kg. However, in respect of the above said writ petition, when the contracted price arrived at in the said writ petition was at 13.75 US $ per kg, the bill of entry has not been cleared and kept pending. 4. Likewise, in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.27720 of 2010, earlier the goods were cleared on the bill of entry declaring the value at 15.50 US $, 15.30 US $ and 15.50 US $ per kg; but when the contract price was stated as 15.30 US $ per kg, the bill of entry is kept pending without clearance. In respect of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.28010 of 2010 which relates to Vietnam Origin, earlier for the same price of 21.00 US $ per kg. three consignments were cleared and when the contract price of 21.00 US $ per kg was stated in respect of the writ petition, the bill of entry is kept pending on the ground that there has been a difference in price stating that it is at 25.00 US $ per kg. three consignments were cleared and when the contract price of 21.00 US $ per kg was stated in respect of the writ petition, the bill of entry is kept pending on the ground that there has been a difference in price stating that it is at 25.00 US $ per kg. Similarly, in respect of the goods of China origin regarding the petitioner in W.P.No.28009 of 2010, when earlier the consignments were quoted at 30.00 US $ per kg, the bill of entry is kept pending without clearance on the ground that the value is in some cases 28.50 US $ or 35.00 US $ per kg. 5. With regard to the petitioners in W.P.No.28395 and 28452 of 2010, though the petitioners have filed bills of entry declaring the value at 15.00 US $ per kg and 15.50 US $ per kg respectively, the respondents did not assess the bill of entry in both the cases and the same are pending. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.28451 of 2010, relating to the import of thrown silk yarn from Vietnam origin, filed the bill of entry declaring the price at US $ 21.35 per kg., the 2nd respondent had not taken any action to assess and release the imported goods. 6. On analysis of the entire facts stated above, it shows that the bills of entry are kept pending with the Customs Department without clearance on the ground that between the admitted contractual value which is stated to have been payable or paid by the petitioners with the foreign importers and the different prices which are arrived at by the Department, there has been variation. Under such circumstances, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners on the ground that as per the amendment of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act by Notification dated 10.09.2007, which has come into effect from 10.10.2007, the valuation of imported and export goods has to be taken on the transaction value, which is stated to be either the price actually paid or payable. This is in contrast to the earlier provisions before the amendment, wherein the value of the goods was deemed to be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale. As per the amended section 14(1), after the said Notification, which has come into effect from 10.10.2007, the clause stands as follows: "14. This is in contrast to the earlier provisions before the amendment, wherein the value of the goods was deemed to be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale. As per the amended section 14(1), after the said Notification, which has come into effect from 10.10.2007, the clause stands as follows: "14. Valuation of goods:- (1) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any other law for the time being in force, the value of the imported goods and export goods shall be the transaction value of such goods, that is to say, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation, or as the case may be, for export from India for delivery at the time and place of exportation, where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the sale subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf: Provided that such transaction value in the case of imported goods shall include, in addition to the price as aforesaid, any amount paid or payable for costs and services, including commissions and brokerage, engineering, design work, royalties and licence fees costs of transportation to the place of importation, insurance loading, unloading and handling charges to the extent and in the manner specified in the rules made in this behalf: Provided further that the rules made in this behalf may provide for,- (i) the circumstances in which the buyer and the seller shall be deemed to be related; (ii) the manner of determination of value in respect of goods when there is no sale, or the buyer and the seller are related, or price is not the sole consideration for the sale or in any other case; (iii) the manner of acceptance or rejection of value declared by the importer or exporter, as the case may be where the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of such value, and determination of value for the purposes of this section: Provided also that such price shall be calculated with reference to the rate of exchange as in force on the date on which a bill of entry is presented under section 46, or a shipping bill of export, as the case may be, is presented under section 50. 7. It is also relevant at this stage to refer to section 14(1), which stood before the amendment of the Customs Act, 1962, as follows: "14. Valuation of goods for purposes of assessment:-(1) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any other law for the time being in force whereunder a duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by reference to their value, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation or exportation, as the case may be, in the course of international trade, where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sold consideration for the sale or offer for sale: Provided that such price shall be calculated with reference to the rate of exchange as in force on the date on which a bill of entry is presented under Section 46, or a shipping bill or bill of export, as the case may be, is presented under Section 50;" 8. It was, by considering the unamended provision under section 14(1) of the said Act, the judgment was delivered by the Honble Apex Court in VARSHA PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER .vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( (2009) 3 SCC 365 ), wherein for the purpose of finding out the valuation of the goods, the authorities under the Act have been empowered to fix the price at the rate which is ordinarily sold or offered for sale and that was subject to the satisfaction of the authorities discretion. It was in those circumstances, the judgment was delivered and therefore, the reliance placed on by Mr.Udhayakumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the purpose of justifying the authorities tentative decision in respect of the price may not be of much helpful to the Department. Necessarily the Department has to assess the value of the goods as per the present provision, namely section 14(1) of the Act, as it stands and elicited above. In any event, it is not for this Court at this stage to express any opinion about the validity or otherwise of the valuation which is stated to have been given by the Department as on date. In any event, it is not for this Court at this stage to express any opinion about the validity or otherwise of the valuation which is stated to have been given by the Department as on date. The fact remains that the Department has not given any show cause notice and the adjudication process is yet to commence and complete. 9. Considering the fact that these are the commodities which are imported and awaiting clearance in the Chennai Port and taking note of the fact that the petitioners are the regular importers, the valuation of which is admittedly fluctuating everyday, I am of the view that pending completion of the adjudication process, certain workable solution has to be made for the purpose of release of the goods. 10. Mr.Udhayakumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel submits that, on releasing of the goods even subject to any condition, the adjudication becomes practically impossible since the petitioners fail to produce documents and appear for enquiry after the goods are released and it is not possible for the Department to trace the persons for the purpose of completing the adjudication process that may result in huge revenue loss to the State. On the other hand, Mr.K.Jayachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are always ready to co-operate with the adjudication process and they are willing to abide by the conditions like the personal bond, etc., so as to bind themselves for early disposal of the adjudication process. 11. Considering the abovesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the respondents shall release the goods concerned subject to the following conditions: (1) The petitioners shall pay the entire amount of duty as per the declared value which may be based on the contract or price etc., as per the provisions of the Customs Act, forthwith to the Department. (2) In addition to that, the petitioners shall provide sufficient bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the respondents drawn on any Nationalised bank in respect of 50% of the difference in duty in favour of the Department, to be kept alive till the adjudication process is completed. (3) In respect of the remaining 50% of the difference in duty, the petitioners shall furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of the respondents. On completion of all the three conditions, the respondent shall release the goods. (3) In respect of the remaining 50% of the difference in duty, the petitioners shall furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of the respondents. On completion of all the three conditions, the respondent shall release the goods. (4) On release of the said goods after completion of the said conditions, the respondents shall complete the adjudication process within a period of four weeks thereafter by giving a necessary show cause notice. It is made clear that on furnishing of necessary show cause notice, the petitioners shall submit their objection, appear before the respondents and co-operate with the Department in the adjudication process. With the above observations, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed.