Incidental appellate power may support interim relief, but bank guarantee cannot usually replace cash redemption fine for confiscated goods.

The Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction was treated as carrying incidental and ancillary power to grant interim relief, even though the statutory pre-deposit provision did not expressly refer to redemption fine. On that basis, the note explains that such power is discretionary and must be exercised judicially with regard to the nature of the relief sought. It further states that release of confiscated goods against a bank guarantee in lieu of cash redemption fine will not ordinarily be granted unless the applicant shows sufficient hardship and the balance of convenience, together with revenue protection, justifies the substitution. The goods were therefore left under customs control pending early hearing of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal had incidental and ancillary power to grant stay or interim relief in respect of redemption fine payable for release of confiscated goods. (ii) Whether, on the facts, the applicants were entitled to release of the confiscated goods on furnishing a bank guarantee instead of paying the redemption fine in cash.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal had incidental and ancillary power to grant stay or interim relief in respect of redemption fine payable for release of confiscated goods.

Analysis: The majority held that the appellate power of the Tribunal included incidental and ancillary power to grant interim relief, even though Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962 expressly dealt with pre-deposit of duty and penalty and did not in terms refer to redemption fine. The power to grant stay was treated as ancillary to appellate jurisdiction, but the extent of that power had to be exercised judicially and with reference to the nature of the relief sought. The dissenting view rejected jurisdiction to extend Section 129-E to redemption fine and treated a bank guarantee as no substitute for cash payment.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had incidental and ancillary power to consider interim relief in relation to redemption fine.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the applicants were entitled to release of the confiscated goods on furnishing a bank guarantee instead of paying the redemption fine in cash.

Analysis: The majority found that the goods had been validly confiscated with an option of redemption on payment of fine, that the adjudication order was not shown to be void on its face, and that the applicants had not established such hardship as would justify dispensing with cash payment. It was held that the balance of convenience did not favour substituting a bank guarantee for the redemption fine, since bank guarantees were not equivalent to cash and the Revenue's interest could not be treated as unsecured in the manner urged. The majority also noted that the appeals could be heard expeditiously because the goods were lying under detention. The dissent took the contrary view and considered the balance of convenience to be in favour of the applicants.

Conclusion: The applicants were not entitled to release of the confiscated goods on furnishing a bank guarantee in lieu of paying the redemption fine in cash.

Final Conclusion: The majority rejected the request for interim release of the confiscated goods against bank guarantee and left the goods to remain under customs control pending disposal of the appeals, which were to be listed for early hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Although the Tribunal has incidental and ancillary appellate power to grant interim relief, that power will not ordinarily be exercised to permit release of confiscated goods against a bank guarantee in lieu of redemption fine unless the applicant shows sufficient grounds and the balance of convenience and revenue protection justify such relief.

---