Court modifies provisional release conditions for imported goods, adds bond & guarantee. Fairness ensured in challenge to seizure order.

The Court modified the conditions for provisional release of imported goods, requiring a bond and bank guarantee, without prejudice to ongoing investigations into the disputed Country of Origin. The petitioners' challenge to the seizure memorandum and conditional release order was addressed, ensuring fairness to both parties. The judgment in W.P.No.540 of 2019 rendered further orders unnecessary, leading to the closure of related writ petitions without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging seizure memorandum and seeking direction for release of consignment, challenge to conditional order for provisional release, dispute over country of origin of imported goods, imposition of conditions for provisional release, validity of conditions imposed, investigation stage of the matter.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging a seizure memorandum and a conditional order for provisional release of imported goods. The goods in question were Black Pepper and Arecanuts imported from Sri Lanka under the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. The Food Safety & Standards Authority of India issued No Objection Certificates for some goods but rejected others. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized the goods, leading to the petitions. The core issue was the Country of Origin of the goods, with the respondent alleging mis-declaration and fraudulent procurement of Certificates of Origin.

2. The petitioner argued that the conditions imposed for provisional release were stringent and unjust, especially when supported by genuine Certificates of Origin. They highlighted a communication from Sri Lankan Customs confirming the goods' origin. The respondent contended that further investigation was needed as the Country of Origin was disputed. The Court noted the ongoing investigation and refrained from making findings that could prejudice it.

3. The Court acknowledged the importance of safeguarding both parties' interests pending investigation. It modified the conditions for provisional release, requiring a bond equal to the seized goods' value and a bank guarantee for 30% of the differential duty. The respondent was directed to release the goods upon compliance. The order was made without prejudice to ongoing investigations and the parties' contentions.

4. The Court's decision in W.P.No.540 of 2019 to modify the conditions rendered further orders unnecessary in related writ petitions. The writ petitions were closed without costs, along with connected miscellaneous petitions. The judgment balanced the need for provisional release with the ongoing investigation into the Country of Origin dispute, ensuring fairness to both parties.

---