Interim stay on import confiscation order refused where no pressing urgency or clear import restriction was shown.

Interim stay of an appellate order setting aside confiscation of imported remote-control equipment was refused because no sufficient present justification was shown. The goods were described as remote controls for domestic devices and had been regularly imported, and the record did not show a clear import restriction applicable to them at that stage. Revenue's reliance on administrative instructions for licensing officers was not treated as a basis to withhold implementation of the appellate order. In the absence of demonstrated urgency or other pressing grounds, interim interference was unwarranted and the stay request was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether stay of the order of the first appellate authority setting aside confiscation of imported remote-control equipment should be granted.

Analysis: The items were described as remote controls used for domestic devices and had been regularly imported. The application for stay was examined against the background of the earlier appellate order and the absence of any demonstrated urgency when the appeal was filed. The imported goods were not shown, at this stage, to fall within any restrictive entry in the relevant import schedule. The materials relied upon by Revenue were treated as administrative instructions addressed to licensing officers and not as a basis for withholding implementation of the appellate order. The circumstances did not establish sufficient justification for interim interference.

Conclusion: Stay of the impugned order was refused and the stay application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim stay of an appellate order will not be granted unless sufficient present justification is shown, particularly where the record does not disclose pressing urgency or a clear import restriction applicable to the goods.

---