Release of seized goods on indemnity bond where detention arose only from missing Transit Declaration Form and no goods mismatch existed

Seized goods and a truck were directed to be released on furnishing security by way of an indemnity bond under Rule 140, because detention rested only on the absence of a Transit Declaration Form. The accompanying documents showed movement of goods between States, and there was no allegation of mismatch in description or quantity. The validity of the penalty proceedings was not examined at this stage, as those proceedings were still pending before the proper officer, and the bond was made subject to the final order in those proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized goods and vehicle could be released on furnishing security where the detention was based only on absence of a Transit Declaration Form and the penalty proceedings were still pending.

Analysis: The goods were detained only for absence of the Transit Declaration Form, while the accompanying documents showed movement of goods from one State to another and there was no allegation of discrepancy in description or quantity of goods. The validity of the penalty proceedings was not examined at this stage because that matter remained pending before the proper officer. In the circumstances, release of the seized goods and truck was directed on the petitioner furnishing security for the amount demanded in the form of an indemnity bond as contemplated by Rule 140, and the bond was made subject to the final order in the penalty proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to release of the seized goods and truck on furnishing the required security by indemnity bond, while the penalty proceedings were left open.

---