JUDGMENT :

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Rule. Mr.Jetly, learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 waives service. Mr.Jitendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 waives service. By consent of parties, petition is heard finally.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned notices dated 2nd February 2022 and 10th February 2022 issued by the respondent no.4 and the order dated 16th February 2022 issued by the respondent no.3. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the Additional Bench, Settlement Commission, Mumbai to call for a report along with the relevant records from the respondent no.2-Commissioner of Customs in terms of Section 127C(3) and to consider and deal with the said application for interim settlement and to pass an appropriate order after complying with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :-

3. On or about 6th January 2022, the petitioner filed Bills of Entry Nos.6414624 and 6414261, both dated 26th November 2021 with the respondents. On 27th November 2021, the respondents issued Seizure Memorandum. The petitioners filed a writ petition bearing No.8751 of 2021 in this Court for various reliefs including for quashing and setting aside the said order of Seizure and for provisional release. In the said writ petition, the Commissioner of Customs (Import) filed an affidavit dated 6th January 2022 opposing the said writ petition. On 28th January 2022, the petitioners sought liberty to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to avail all the remedies available in law. This Court accordingly disposed of the said writ petition as withdrawn with liberty as prayed by the petitioners. This Court disposed of the Interim Application No.4277 of 2021 as infructous in view of withdrawal of the writ petition.

4. On 28th January 2022, the petitioners filed an application to the Commissioner of Customs (Import). In the said application, the petitioners referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents in the said writ petition no.8751 of 2021 and stated that since the goods are under seizure and yet to be cleared for home consumption, the issue of establishing the Identity of the goods for the purpose of exports in terms of Section 74(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 stands satisfied. The petitioners stated that they were accepting and depositing the net customs duty along with interest on those imported goods of which exports is sought computed at 2% of the total import duty, self-assessed on the basis of available contemporaneous valuation from finally assessed Bills of Entry as per the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and in terms of Section 74(1) of the Customs Act read with the judgment of this Court in case of Cipla Limited Vs. Union of India, 1995 (8)) ELT 17 (Bom.).

5. The petitioners made it clear that they were not accepting any differential duty as payable in respect of any past imports. The petitioners requested to take on record the contemporaneous value for each of the items mentioned in the two Seizure Memorandums both dated 27th November 2021 and to assess the value of the seized goods as per the said available contemporaneous value and to decide the issue of duty, interest, fine and penalty arising from the said deemed written Show Cause Notice received on or about 6th January 2022.

6. The petitioners also sought permission for filing and processing the Shipping Bills under Sections 50 and 51 for export of the seized goods against the said Export Orders under Section 74(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and prayed for the provisional release of the seized goods pending final adjudication. The petitioners annexed copies of TR6 Challans dated 28th January 2022 in respect of the payment of Rs.12,07,804/- and Rs.10,91