Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and 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 would pay 30% of the differential duty for the release of the goods in question and for the balance amount, the petitioner would furnish a personal bond. He had further submitted that this Court had been, consistently, passing similar orders for the release of the goods and that such orders have also been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that this Court had passed an order, on 24.3.2011, in W.P.No.7091 of 2011, directing the respondents to release the goods in question stating that the petitioner shall pay 50% of the differential duty and for the balance amount the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond. The said order had been challenged by the petitioner, in W.A.No.599 of 2011. However, by an order, dated 29.6.2011, the First Bench of this Court had confirmed the said order, directing the assessing authority to proceed with the assessment and to conclude the same, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. 4. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order, dated 24.3.2011, made in W.P.No.7091 of 2011, had been passed in view of the various contentions raised on behalf of the respondents therein, the conditions relating to the pricing of the apples imported from United States of America and the under invoicing of the goods with the malafideintention of avoiding payment of the proper customs duty, as per law. It had also been contended that a detailed investigation was being conducted by the respondents relating to the said allegations. It had also been contended that a detailed investigation was being conducted by the respondents relating to the said allegations. However, in the present case the contract entered into by the petitioner, for importing the apples from the United States of America, had been upheld by an order in Appeal, in C.Cus No.691/2011, dated 27.9.2011, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which reads as follows: "Also following the ratio-decidendi of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Pushpanjali silks wherein it was held that when no case has been made that any amount is paid over and above the contracted price, nor relationship established, nor is it that the price paid has influenced by any extra commercial considerations, the transaction value cannot be rejected as per the Valuation rules. In absence of any contrary findings to the terms of the contract, the bonafide nature of the contract cannot be doubted that too when the said documents has been legalized by the Foreign state." 5. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to release the goods in question, on the petitioner fulfilling the following conditions: "The petitioner shall pay 30% of the differential duty, and for the balance amount, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond. On compliance of both the conditions, the respondents shall release the goods in question, forthwith. The petitioner shall cooperate, fully, in the proceedings that may be initiated by the respondents, for the assessment of customs duty.” 6. Further, the third respondent, the assessing authority is directed to consider the claims made by the petitioner and to proceed with the assessment and pass an appropriate order, as expeditiously as possible, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.