Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had executed a 'continuity bond' for a sum of Rs.5 Crores. Therefore, any liability that may be imposed on the petitioner, by the respondents, on completion of the adjudication proceedings, if any, could be met in view of the 'continuity bond' executed by the petitioner. He had further submitted that no detention order had been passed by the respondents, till date. However, the third respondent is refusing to release the containers in question, without adducing any reasons for such refusal. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that an investigation had been initiated, in respect of the importing of empty containers from Dubai. Therefore, the containers had not been released to the petitioner. 4. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, as well as in the counter affidavit and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the third respondent is directed to release the containers in question, on production of a copy of this order, as the petitioner had executed the 'continuity bond', in Bond No.2000062075, on 01.04.2011, for a sum of Rs.5 Crores. The release of the containers would be subject to the final orders to be passed in the adjudication proceedings, initiated by the respondents, if any. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.