Refund of security deposit on seized goods allowed after penalty adjustment; no appeal against redemption order or limitation bar applied.

A security deposit made for provisional release of seized goods does not acquire the character of duty or interest, so the balance remained refundable after adjustment of the penalty when the appellant chose not to redeem the goods. Rejection of the refund claim could not be sustained merely because no appeal was filed against the redemption fine order, and limitation did not bar the claim since it concerned return of a security deposit rather than refund of duty. The balance deposit was therefore directed to be returned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the balance amount deposited as security for provisional release of seized goods was refundable after the appellant chose not to redeem the goods, and whether the refund claim could be rejected for want of appeal against the redemption fine order or as time-barred.

Analysis: The amount deposited was only a security for possible dues arising from adjudication and did not acquire the character of duty or interest. After the adjudication order allowed redemption on payment of fine and imposed penalty, the appellant was entitled to waive redemption and seek return of the balance after adjustment of the penalty. The absence of an appeal against the redemption order did not justify refusal of refund in these circumstances. The objection of limitation was also not accepted since the claim related to return of a security deposit and not to refund of duty.

Conclusion: The refund claim was wrongly rejected and the balance security deposit, after adjusting the penalty, was directed to be returned to the appellant.

---