Provisional release security must reflect investigative deposits when they relate to seized goods and no confirmed demand exists.

For provisional release of seized goods, the security required by bank guarantee for the differential duty had to be computed after adjusting the amount already deposited during investigation. The deposit was treated as connected with the seizure, and in the absence of a show cause notice or confirmed demand, it could not be regarded as unrelated to the present liability. The modified condition therefore limited the bank guarantee to the unpaid balance of the differential duty, and provisional release was directed on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for provisional release of seized goods, the bank guarantee required to secure 100% of the differential duty was to be computed after adjusting the amount already deposited during investigation.

Analysis: The earlier order directing furnishing of a bank guarantee for 100% of the differential duty was understood to require security only for the unpaid portion. The amount deposited during investigation was found to have been made in connection with the seizure of the goods, and no supporting material was produced to show that it represented a past liability. In the absence of any show cause notice or confirmed demand, the deposit could not be treated as unrelated to the present seizure.

Conclusion: The bank guarantee was required only for the unpaid differential duty after adjusting the amount already deposited, and provisional release of the goods was directed accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application succeeded, and the respondent was directed to grant provisional release on the modified security condition.

Ratio Decidendi: Where money deposited during investigation is shown to relate to the seized goods and no confirmed demand exists, such deposit must be adjusted while computing the security required for provisional release.

---