JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st and 4th respondents herein culminated in the impugned letter Supudnama dated 14.07.2021 and to quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to release the possession of the car and the original RC Book to the petitioner.) 1. Heard Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for Mr.Akhil Bahnsali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel for R1 and Ms.K.Indu Priya for R4. Service is complete on R2 & R3 but there is no appearance. 2. The petitioner states that he had purchased a Toyota Land Cruiser bearing engine number 1VD0494400 and chassis number JTMHV02J504286544 (in short 'vehicle/vehicle in question') and imported the same from Dubai. 3. Since the petitioner was unable to obtain registration of the car from the Road Transport Officer (RTO) at Tamil Nadu as the model of the vehicle purchased had not yet been introduced in India and thus was not mapped into the RTO's system, the petitioner had not been running the same on road in Tamil Nadu. However, alternate arrangements appear to have been made to obtain registration from the State of Punjab and ultimately, the vehicle in question came to be registered in the State of Punjab with registration No.PB36 J 9799. 4. In the above circumstances, R1 being the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence issued summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short 'Act') to the petitioner, and seized the vehicle under mahazar on 14.07.2021. The seized vehicle was kept under custody of Anamallais Toyota Service Centre which is arrayed as R4. The petitioner has challenged the seizure memo in this Writ Petition. 5. Pending Writ Petition, the petitioner's application dated 22.10.2021 in terms of Section 110A of the Act seeking provisional release of the vehicle came to be ordered by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Maharastra on 29.12.2021, imposing the following three conditions. “(i) The beneficial owner shall pay the differential duty amounting to 67,74,840/- (Rupees Sixty seven Lakhs Seventy four Thousand Eight Hundred and Fourty Only). “(i) The beneficial owner shall pay the differential duty amounting to 67,74,840/- (Rupees Sixty seven Lakhs Seventy four Thousand Eight Hundred and Fourty Only). (ii) Execute a Bond for 33,21,000/- (Rupees Thirty three Lakhs Twenty one Thousand only) with an undertaking that they shall pay the duty, fine and/or penalty as may be adjudged by the Adjudicating Authority, subject to appellate provisions under the Customs Act, 1962 as prescribed in para 5 of Circular No.35/2017-Customs dated 16.08.2017. (iii) Execute a Bank Guarantee of 1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs only) having clause binding the issuing bank to keep it renewed and valid till final adjudication of the case, or in the event of non renewal of Bank Guarantee as above, the guaranteed amount be credited to the Government account by the bank on its own as prescribed in para 5 of Circular No.35/2017-Customs dated 16.08.2017.” 6. The above order has not been questioned by the petitioner. However, according to the petitioner, a different set of conditions has been imposing by a Commissionerate in Maharastra and the Telangana High Court in W.P.Nos.5944 and 5972 of 2022 has referred to the same in its order dated 07.02.2022. The conditions imposed in that case are as follows: “1. Duty forgone to the tune of Rs.44,24,760/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand and Seven Hundred and Sixty Only) should be paid by the owner. 2. PD Bond for Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Only) should be executed with an undertaking that the importer shall pay the duty; fine and / or penalty as may be adjudged by the Adjudicating Authority, subject to appellate provisions under the Customs Act, 1962 as prescribed in para No.5 of Circular No.35/2017 – Customs dated 16.08.2017. 3. Bank Guarantee of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Twenty Lakhs Only) should be executed with clause binding the issuing bank to keep it renewed and valid till final adjudication of the case, or in the event of non-renewal of Bank Guarantee as above, the guaranteed amount be credited to the Government account by the bank on its own as prescribed in para No.5 of Circular No.35/2017 – Customs dated 16.08.2017.” 7. This Court is unaware as to the identity or otherwise of the facts in the present case with the facts in the case dealt with by the Telangana High Court. This Court is unaware as to the identity or otherwise of the facts in the present case with the facts in the case dealt with by the Telangana High Court. That apart, the order of provisional release dated 29.12.2021 has also, as on date, become final. However, there is no bar and Mr.Sundareswaran would agree with me on this, for the petitioner to seek modification of the conditions imposed by the Commissioner and attempt to persuade the Commissioner to vary the conditions imposed originally. 8. Pending Writ Petition, a Show Cause Notice is also stated to have been issued to the petitioner and proceedings for adjudication are stated to be ongoing. Needless to say, the petitioner shall cooperate in the same and both parties shall ensure that proceedings are completed at the very earliest. 9. As far as the present Writ Petition is concerned, much water has flown under the bridge from the time of issuance of seizure memo, with which this Writ Petition has been rendered infructuous. It is closed as such. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek modification of the conditions imposed under order dated 29.12.2021 if it so advised and if it so desires and a modification petition, if and when filed, shall be disposed, after hearing the petitioner by the appropriate authority, in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.