JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the second respondent rejecting the request made by the petitioner for release of the 'Bank Guarantee' dated 30.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.6,79,50,000/-. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that they are licensed Container Freight Station (CFS), carrying on business at Tuticorin. According to the petitioner, a container containing Red Sanders were entrusted to the petitioner by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for safe custody which was kept in the warehouse of the petitioner. Thereafter, the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence found that the seal in the container was broken open and replaced with another broken customs seal and the Red Sanders were stolen from the container. Immediately, the petitioner lodged a police complaint for the stolen Red Sanders from the container. But on 05.03.2018, the first respondent suspended the license of the petitioner, who is the holder of a valid CFS license. Challenging the suspension of the license, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.5052 of 2018. By an interim order, this Court granted an order of Interim Stay for the suspension of the license. 3. Aggrieved by the interim order granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner, the respondent preferred a writ Appeal in W.A.(MD) No.673 of 2018 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, after consideration, remanded the matter back to the learned single Judge of this Court for fresh consideration. After the remand by the Division Bench, by order dated 02.08.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.5052 of 2018, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of this Writ Petition by passing the following order:- “23. The Division Bench, after consideration, remanded the matter back to the learned single Judge of this Court for fresh consideration. After the remand by the Division Bench, by order dated 02.08.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.5052 of 2018, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of this Writ Petition by passing the following order:- “23. Therefore, considering the subsequent developments, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders: (i) The order of interim stay granted by this Court, vide order dated 09.03.2018, is made absolute till the disposal of the proceedings initiated by the respondents in SCN No.01/2018 dated 24.07.2018, on conditions that, (a) the petitioner shall execute a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.6.79 Crores in favour of the respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (b) The petitioner shall submit his objections to the show cause notice dated 24.07.2018 within 30 days as indicated by the respondent; (c) The petitioner shall co-operate with the enquiry proceedings without adopting dilatory tactics. (ii) On compliance of all the aforesaid conditions by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer appointed by the respondent shall complete the proceedings within a period of four months thereafter.” 4. In compliance with the order dated 02.08.2018 passed in W.P.(MD)No.5052 of 2018, the petitioner furnished the 'Bank Guarantee' in favour of the first respondent for a sum of Rs.6,79,50,000/-. Even during the pendency of the writ petition in W.P(MD) No.5052 of 2018, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 24.07.2018 to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner as to why license issued in favour of the petitioner should not be revoked and a penalty also be imposed and a reply was also given by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 24.07.2018 issued by the first respondent. 5. The first respondent vide final order dated 10.01.2019 (C.No.VIII/48/85/2018-Cus.Pol)-order in original No.1 of 2019 has passed an order and has refrained from taking action under Regulation 11 of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations (HCCAR), 2009 for revocation of license granted to the petitioner. However, for the violation of the provisions of HCARR 2009, the first respondent held the petitioner liable for penal action under Regulations 12(8) of HCCAR, 2009. The first respondent also imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner for violation of regulations 12(8) of the HCCAR, 2009. However, for the violation of the provisions of HCARR 2009, the first respondent held the petitioner liable for penal action under Regulations 12(8) of HCCAR, 2009. The first respondent also imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner for violation of regulations 12(8) of the HCCAR, 2009. Thereafter, the petitioner has paid the penalty of Rs.50,000/- imposed by the first respondent under its final order dated 10.01.2019. 6. According to the petitioner, a clear finding in paragraph 29.3 of the order dated 10.01.2019, passed by the first respondent that the Red Sanders which were stolen from the CSF premises of the petitioner were subsequently seized by the forest officials and there is a clear finding in the same paragraph that the confession statements of the accused, the seizure mahazar effected by the forest department and the police investigation report - all confirmed the fact that the red sanders seized by the forest department on 02.05.2015 were the goods stolen from the petitioner's premises. Therefore, according to the petitioner the 'Bank Guarantee' for a sum of Rs.6,79,50,000/- which was given by them, pursuant to the orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court as a security for the stolen goods is no more applicable since the first respondent has given a very clear finding that the stolen goods are very much available with the forest department. Therefore, in such circumstances, the instant writ petition has been filed for the return of 'Bank Guarantee', since the first respondent rejected the request dated 18.01.2019 made by the petitioner on 25.01.2019. 7. Heard Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Aravindhan, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 8. Per contra, the case of the respondents as seen from the counter affidavit filed by them before this Court is that the main bone of contention for not returning the 'Bank Guarantee' to the petitioner is that, though the police has confirmed the identity of the goods, the forest department who are now holding the custody of the impugned goods have neither confirmed the identity of the goods nor returned the impugned goods. Therefore, according to them, since the identity of the goods is yet to be confirmed and the custody of the goods are yet to be transferred to the respondents, the 'Bank Guarantee' executed for compensation of the fiscal loss to the Government cannot be considered for release. Therefore, according to them, since the identity of the goods is yet to be confirmed and the custody of the goods are yet to be transferred to the respondents, the 'Bank Guarantee' executed for compensation of the fiscal loss to the Government cannot be considered for release. Further, it is their contention that the findings of the adjudicating authority by order dated 10.01.2019 is only to arrive at a decision as to whether the petitioner has violated the provisions of HCCAR, 2009 or not and whether they are punishable or not. 9. According to the respondents, on considering the fact that the petitioner has executed the 'Bank Guarantee' equal to the value of the goods lost, the adjudicating authority has taken a lenient view and refrained from taking punitive action under Regulations 11 of HCCAR, 2009. Further, it is the contention of the respondents that this Court has clearly directed the petitioner vide its order dated 02.08.2018 to execute the 'Bank Guarantee' to compensate the fiscal loss caused by the petitioner on account of pilferage. Hence, according to them, it is very clear that it is a security towards the goods lost from their custody and hence the respondents were right in not considering the request of the petitioner to return the 'Bank Guarantee' till the lost goods were received back. Discussion: 10. The entire issue revolves upon the theft of Red Sanders which were kept in the custody of the petitioner by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The 'Bank Guarantee' was furnished by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.6,79,50,000/- only to secure the loss of the stolen goods namely the Red Sanders, which were entrusted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to the petitioner for safe custody. The 'Bank Guarantee' was given only as a condition for seeking stay of suspension of license. The first respondent has in his letter dated 10.01.2019 has categorically held in paragraph 29.3 that the Red Sanders which were stolen from the petitioner premises have been seized by the forest department and they are very much available now. Paragraph 29.3 of the order dated 10.01.2019 is extracted hereunder: “29.3. From the above Police report, I find that the red sanders which were stolen by the culprits from the premises of the noticee have subsequently been seized by forest officers. Paragraph 29.3 of the order dated 10.01.2019 is extracted hereunder: “29.3. From the above Police report, I find that the red sanders which were stolen by the culprits from the premises of the noticee have subsequently been seized by forest officers. The confession statements of the accused, the seizure mahazar effected by Forest Department and the police investigation report all confirm the fact that the red sanders seized by Forest Department on 02.05.2015 were the goods stolen from the Hari & Co CFS earlier.” 11. The fact that the stolen goods have been seized and is now lying with the forest department has not been disputed by the respondents. The only thing they are disputing is that it has not been returned back to them by the forest department and therefore, at this stage, the 'Bank Guarantee' given by the petitioner cannot be returned by them. The 'Bank Guarantee' was given by the petitioner only for the purpose of securing the interest of the respondents and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, in respect of the stolen goods. Admittedly, the stolen goods are now very much available with the forest department which in all likelihood will be returned back to the respondents in accordance with law. 12. The petitioner is a licensed Container Freight Station functioning from 2005 onwards. According the learned counsel for the petitioner, they are having a huge turn over of approximately Rs.300 crores every year and they have also obtained awards from the Customs Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions has also submitted that they will continue to abide by all the Regulations of HCCAR, 2009. They also undertake that in case of any violation of any of the conditions under HCCAR, 2009, the respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate legal action in accordance with law against them. Further, as seen from the affidavit, filed in support of the earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on instructions, the petitioner does not seem to be a fly-by-night operator, as they are having a good business at Tuticorin Port. 13. Further, as seen from the affidavit, filed in support of the earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on instructions, the petitioner does not seem to be a fly-by-night operator, as they are having a good business at Tuticorin Port. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the materials placed on record and after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by the retention of 'Bank Guarantee'. Being a commercial establishment, the said amount of Rs.6,79,50,000/- for which the 'Bank Guarantee' was issued will be useful for the petitioner for his day-to-day business, instead of remaining idle without benefiting both the parties. 14. In the interest of justice, the order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the second respondent rejecting the request made by the petitioner for the release of 'Bank Guarantee' for a sum of Rs.6,79,50,000/- dated 30.10.2018 is hereby quashed and the first respondent is directed to release the 'Bank Guarantee' within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate legal action against the petitioner, if they are found to violate any of the statutory Regulations, including the HCCAR Regulations, 2009. 15. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.