Re-export of confiscated goods must follow a Tribunal order when no stay exists, and pendency of appeal cannot block compliance.

Customs authorities were required to comply with the Tribunal's earlier direction permitting re-export of goods because that order had not been stayed by the High Court. The Tribunal's later miscellaneous order safeguarded Revenue's interest by keeping the bank guarantee alive until disposal of the appeal, and the appellant had furnished that guarantee. Mere pendency of the Revenue's appeal did not justify withholding implementation, and continued retention of the goods after confiscation had been set aside was unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Customs authorities were bound to comply with the Tribunal's earlier order and permit re-export of the appellant's goods.

Analysis: The earlier order had not been stayed by the High Court and had directed re-export within a fixed time. The subsequent miscellaneous order protected the Revenue's interest by requiring a bank guarantee to remain alive until disposal of the appeal. The appellant had complied by furnishing the bank guarantee, yet the authorities continued to withhold implementation. The Tribunal held that pendency of the Revenue's appeal could not justify non-compliance in the absence of any stay, and that continued retention of the goods after setting aside confiscation was unjustified.

Conclusion: The Customs authorities were bound to implement the Tribunal's orders and permit re-export of the goods.

---