Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had imported 1610 kilograms of Stone Cutting Tools (Unbranded), from China, at USD 4427.50. The said goods had been shipped from M/s.Guangzhou Sunshine Lighting Company Limited, China, vide invoice No.RCF-120223-14, dated 23.2.2012. A Bill of Entry No.6383677, dated 28.3.2012, had been filed, by the petitioner, for the release of the goods in question, for home consumption. 3. It had been further stated that the authorities concerned had examined the goods and had found them to be in correct quantity and description, as declared by the petitioner. The petitioner had furnished all the necessary documents to establish the value of the goods in question, as shown in the invoice. However, no orders had been passed, by the respondents, for the release of the said goods, even though similar goods imported by certain other importers had been cleared, based on the declared value of the goods, which was similar to that of the goods imported by the petitioner, under Bill of Entry No6383677, dated 28.3.2012. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the averments and the allegations made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It had been stated that, even though a notice had been issued by the second respondent, dated 27.7.2012, showing the correct valuation of the goods imported by the petitioner, the said fact had not been brought to the notice of this Court, by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. 5. It had been further stated that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had conducted an investigation into the imports of Carbide Tips and Hallow Drill Bits and had issued an alert, with regard to the values to be adopted for such goods. The investigation had lead to the recovery of parallel invoices. The said invoices had revealed the correct and prevailing prices of Carbide Tips. The CIF prices of Carbide Tips, for the year 20112012, are in the range of USD 46.5 and 54 per kilogram. Hence, the value of the goods shown by the petitioner could not be accepted. The investigation had lead to the recovery of parallel invoices. The said invoices had revealed the correct and prevailing prices of Carbide Tips. The CIF prices of Carbide Tips, for the year 20112012, are in the range of USD 46.5 and 54 per kilogram. Hence, the value of the goods shown by the petitioner could not be accepted. Hence, a show cause notice, dated 27.7.2012, had been issued, by the second respondent, for the proper assessment of the goods in question and for initiating further action in that regard. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that this Court had considered such issues, earlier, in other similar cases, and had passed orders directing the provisional release of the imported goods, on payment of the entire duty liable to be paid by the importer, based on the declaration made by such importer and on the deposit of 30% of the differential duty, based on the value of the goods, as assessed by the authorities concerned. One such order, dated 8.6.2012, made in W.P.No.9850 of 2012, had been placed before this Court. The said order had been passed by this Court following the decision of the Supreme Court, in Commissioner Vs. Navshakthi Industries Pvt. Ltd, in Civil Appeal No.3940 of 2011, in its order, dated 4.5.2012. 7. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to release the goods in question, on the payment of the entire duty payable by the petitioner, as per its declared value, and on the petitioner making the deposit of 30% of the differential duty, before the first respondent, as per the show cause notice, dated 27.7.2012, issued by the second respondent. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for the balance 70% of the differential duty. On the petitioner complying with the above mentioned conditions, the goods in question shall be released by the respondents, as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the authorities concerned shall adjudicate the matter and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, without any undue delay. The petitioner shall co-operate, fully, in the enquiry to be conducted by the authorities. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.