Provisional release conditions for seized goods may be modified when bond and security deposit terms are found excessive.

Conditions for provisional release of seized goods were examined on whether the bond and security deposit requirements were excessive in light of the disputed seizure value. The Tribunal considered the facts and the revenue's reliance on Circular No. 35/2017-CUS, and held that the release terms should be calibrated to meet the interests of justice. It modified the provisional release conditions by requiring a bond for the full seizure value while reducing the security deposit to a lower amount in each case. The operative effect was that release of the seized goods was allowed on the revised terms.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conditions imposed for provisional release of seized goods, particularly the requirement of security deposit, needed modification.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the appellant disputed the seizure value and contended that the bond and security deposit conditions were excessive. The Revenue relied on Circular No. 35/2017-CUS dated 16.08.2017 and supported the original conditions. Considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be met by requiring a bond for the entire seizure value and a reduced security deposit in each case.

Conclusion: The provisional release conditions were modified, and the seized goods were directed to be released on execution of bonds for the full seizure value and payment of security deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs in each case.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent of reducing the security deposit condition for provisional release, while retaining the bond requirement for the full seizure value.

Ratio Decidendi: Conditions for provisional release of seized goods must be fair and commensurate with the facts, and may be modified to ensure that they serve the interests of justice.

---