Interim release of seized goods allowed under exemption notifications, with bond required for disputed duty liability.

Interim release of seized goods was considered appropriate where the goods were covered by exemption notifications, including a notification granting nil duty to bagasse board and a substituted notification relevant to the product description. The court also noted that similarly situated manufacturers in another State were being assessed at nil duty and that the grievance had been raised for some time. On that basis, interim protection was justified, but it was balanced against the department's demand by requiring a bond for the duty that may ultimately be found leviable at the asserted rate.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim release of seized goods could be ordered pending adjudication, and whether such release could be made conditional on furnishing a bond for the duty amount claimed by the department.

Analysis: The goods in question were covered by exemption notifications, including a notification granting nil rate of duty to bagasse board and another notification, as substituted, that was also relevant to the product description. The order also took note of the fact that similarly situated manufacturers in another State were being subjected to nil duty, and that the petitioners had been raising this grievance for some time. In these circumstances, interim protection was considered justified, but the release was balanced against the department's claim by requiring a bond for the duty that may ultimately be found leviable at the asserted rate.

Conclusion: Interim release of the seized goods was granted in favour of the petitioners, subject to furnishing a bond for the amount of duty claimed by the department.

---