Provisional release conditions must be proportionate to the facts; harsher terms were modified for seized goods.

Conditions for provisional release of seized containers were modified where the goods were detained for alleged misdeclaration of value, description and weight. The authority could secure revenue, but release terms had to remain proportionate to the facts and could not be materially harsher than the conditions applied to earlier consignments of the same importer without justification. The precedent cited was treated as fact-specific and not controlling. Release was directed on execution of a bond with solvency support, payment of differential and anti-dumping duty, and furnishing of a limited bank guarantee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conditions imposed for provisional release of the seized containers required modification and what terms should govern release of the goods.

Analysis: The goods had been detained and seized on allegations of misdeclaration of value, description and weight. The authority was entitled to secure the revenue while permitting provisional release, but the conditions should not be more onerous than justified by the facts. Since earlier consignments of the same importer had been released on certain conditions, the subsequent consignments could not be subjected to materially harsher terms without basis. The cited precedent was held inapplicable because provisional release conditions depend on the facts of each case. The appropriate balance was to require bond and solvency support, payment of differential and anti-dumping duty, and a limited bank guarantee.

Conclusion: The conditions were modified and the goods in 13 containers were directed to be provisionally released on execution of bond with solvency certificate, payment of differential and anti-dumping duty, and furnishing of bank guarantee of 20% of the duty involved.

---