JUDGMENT 1. The only question which arises for consideration in the instant statutory appeal is what would be the criteria that should be adopted - either by the State or an authority of the State - whenever it is granted any discretionary power either to increase or decrease any amount which is required to be deposited as security under any statutory provision, especially in revenue related matters. The answer to this question is relatively simple. Whenever such discretionary power is given - either to the State or an authority of the State - such discretionary power is required to be exercised following the well established principle as enshrined in the doctrine of fairness coupled with the grand old principles of equity. There cannot be any adhocism in the approach by the State or an authority of the State while using such discretionary power. That apart and in any event, cogent and justifiable reasons are required to be recorded - in writing - whenever such discretionary power is exercised which tantamounts to either increase or decrease of any amount that is required to be deposited as security, especially in revenue related matters of the State. 2. In the facts of the instant case, the subject-matter of challenge is a judgment and order dated 6 February, 2020, passed by the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, in Customs Appeal No. 77453 of 2019. By the said judgment and order, two statutory appeals filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal (being respondent herein) against the 'Provisional Release Orders' were disposed of with the following directions:- "4. After hearing both sides and considering the totality of facts of the case, we find it would meet the interests of justice if the appellant gives a bond for the entire seizure value of the goods and makes a Security Deposit of Rs. 15.00 Lakhs (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) in each of these cases. On execution of bonds and payment of security deposits, the seized goods shall be provisionally released." 3. While passing the above directions, whether the learned Tribunal followed the principles of law enunciated above, particularly in the backdrop of 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of the applicable guidelines dated 16 August, 2017, for grant of provisional release of imported goods which are seized under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, is required to be looked into. While passing the above directions, whether the learned Tribunal followed the principles of law enunciated above, particularly in the backdrop of 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of the applicable guidelines dated 16 August, 2017, for grant of provisional release of imported goods which are seized under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, is required to be looked into. Since we have broadly indicated at the very outset as to how we propose to deal with this matter, we request the learned Assistant Solicitor General to take necessary instructions from his client in the backdrop of our observations as indicated at the outset so that we can dispose of this matter on the next date, subject, of course, to hearing the respondent, Shri Rajib Ghosh. 4. In the meanwhile, we direct the learned Advocate-on-Record of the appellant to serve notice along with a copy of the appeal papers which before us to the respondent and file an affidavit of service on the next date indicating service as directed herein. 5. List this matter three weeks hence for further consideration.