The main legal point established in the judgment is the modification of the impugned provisional release order by issuing directions for the submission of a bond equivalent to the declared value of goods and a bank guarantee to the extent of 20% of the duty drawback payable.

JUDGMENT

R. D. Dhanuka, J. - Rule. Mr. Jetly, learned senior counsel for the respondents 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 prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned provisional release order dated 4th January, 2022 issued by the respondent no.4, declaration that the respondents do have the jurisdiction to put on hold and/or put on alert and deal with the IEC of the petitioner, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw the written representation issued to put the petitioner on alert and for various other reliefs.

3. The respondents had issued a seizure memo on 17th December, 2021 under Section 110 of the Customs act, 1962 in respect of the export shipment of goods having description as 'OTHER FaBRICS, CONTaINING 85% OR MORE BY WEIGHT OF SILK OR OF SILK WaSTE OTHER THaN NOIL SILK (SILK FaBRIC) (GSM 60) (18)' under declared CTH 50072090 and declared total FOB of Rs.7.343 crores attempted to be exported vide Shipping Bills described in the said seizure memo and directing the custodian M/s. JWC Logistics Private Limited, petitioner and the Customs Broker M/s. Rajbir Singh not to remove, part with or otherwise deal with the said goods except with the written permission of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, SIIB, Export, JNCH.

4. It is not in dispute that after passing of the said seizure memo dated 17th December, 2021, the petitioner made a request to the respondents for a provisional release of the said goods which were subject matter of the subject memo. The respondents after hearing the petitioner personally passed the impugned order on 4th January, 2022 permitting provisional release of the goods seized vide said seizure memo dated 17th December, 2021 against the Bond in the prescribed format for the full declared value of the seized goods and a Bank Guarantee for 25% of such value.

5. Dr. Kantawalla, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to some of the documents annexed to the petition and also some of the averments made by the respondents in their affidavit-in-reply and certain averments made in the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the respondents.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the respondents have without any justification placed the petitioner under put alert list causing tremendous hardship in respect of the export already held by the petitioner and also in respect of the export likely to be effected by the petitioner in future. He submits that the said placement of the petitioner in the put alert list is with ulterior motive.

7. Learned counsel invited our attention to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply stating that the respondents are examining the past export and also the consignment cleared having the same declared description. Result of the investigation would decide the eligibility of drawback. He submits that under the guise of the said put alert list, the respondents are trying to reopen the exports already completed by the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel invited our attention to the judgment of Gujarat High Court in case of Veer Impex v/s. Union of India, 2016 (332) E.L.T. 87 (Guj.) and would submit that the Gujarat High Court had permitted provisional release of seized goods upon furnishing of bond of 100% value of the goods. He submits that no condition of furnishing a bank guarantee was imposed by the Gujarat High Court in the said judgment against the petitioner therein. Learned counsel strongly placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court delivered on 20th January, 2021 in Interim application (L) No. 578 of 2021 in Writ Petition (L) No. 98518 of 2020 filed by the petitioner itself and would submit that this Court had modified the provisional release order by directing the respondents to release the goods of the petitioner for export subject to submission of bond equivalent to declared value of