Provisional release conditions cannot be enlarged by fresh security demands or premature classification directions on seized goods.

For provisional release of seized goods, customs cannot impose fresh conditions such as an additional bank guarantee for fine and penalty when the earlier court order already fixed the release terms; the added security was stayed and not required. An interim direction also could not compel the goods to be described as "unfinished leather" while their true nature remained under adjudication, because that would pre-empt the classification issue. The impugned additional conditions were therefore set aside for interim release, and the goods were to be released once the earlier court-directed conditions were complied with.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, in the circumstances of provisional release of the goods, the customs authority could insist upon furnishing a bank guarantee towards fine and penalty in addition to the conditions already directed by the Court; (ii) whether the authority could require the goods to be described as "unfinished leather" pending adjudication.

Issue (i): whether, in the circumstances of provisional release of the goods, the customs authority could insist upon furnishing a bank guarantee towards fine and penalty in addition to the conditions already directed by the Court.

Analysis: The earlier order had already modified the provisional release conditions and required compliance on specified terms. The subsequent communication introduced an additional monetary security component in the form of a bank guarantee, although no such requirement had been disclosed in the earlier round. The added condition was treated as unnecessary and as diluting the effect of the prior judicial directions governing release.

Conclusion: The requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee was stayed, and the petitioners were not bound to furnish that additional security.

Issue (ii): whether the authority could require the goods to be described as "unfinished leather" pending adjudication.

Analysis: The description direction was viewed as premature because the question of the true nature of the goods was still under adjudication. An interim release condition could not pre-empt the final determination of classification or identity of the goods.

Conclusion: The direction to describe the goods as "unfinished leather" was stayed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned additional conditions were set aside for the purpose of interim release, and the goods were directed to be released forthwith once the earlier court-ordered conditions were complied with.

Ratio Decidendi: Conditions for provisional release must remain consistent with the earlier judicial order and cannot be enlarged by introducing fresh burdens that are not justified by the record or that pre-empt adjudication on the identity of the goods.

---