Provisional release of seized gold goods allowed where prima facie documentation existed and goods were not shown to be prohibited.

Seized gold jewellery and gold bars supported by import-export records, bills of entry, shipping bills, photographs and clearance documents were held fit for provisional release under section 110A of the Customs Act, as the refusal order was cryptic and no credible basis was shown to deny interim release. The record also did not establish that the goods were prohibited goods under section 2(33); the jewellery had been declared and cleared after examination, and the bars and stock prima facie matched the import documents. Provisional release was therefore justified subject to bond and bank guarantee conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the seized gold jewellery and gold bars were liable to provisional release pending adjudication under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the goods could be treated as prohibited goods so as to justify refusal of provisional release.

Issue (i): Whether the seized gold jewellery and gold bars were liable to provisional release pending adjudication under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The refusal order gave no cogent reasons and was treated as a cryptic and non-speaking order. The seized goods were supported by import and export documents, bills of entry, shipping bills, photographs and clearance records, and the record did not show a credible basis to deny interim release pending adjudication. The discretion under section 110A was required to be exercised fairly, and the facts showed a strong case for provisional release on appropriate safeguards.

Conclusion: Provisional release was held to be justified, subject to bond and bank guarantee conditions.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods could be treated as prohibited goods so as to justify refusal of provisional release.

Analysis: Gold jewellery re-imported after exhibition abroad was found to have been declared at the customs post and cleared after examination, and the Department did not establish that the goods were different from those exported. As regards the gold bars and other stock at the factory, the unique numbers and supporting records prima facie tallied with the import documents. Mere procedural lapses did not convert the goods into prohibited goods within the meaning of section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The goods were not treated as prohibited goods on the facts found.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and provisional release of the seized goods was directed on specified security conditions, with the impugned refusal order set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods supported by prima facie lawful documentation and not shown to be prohibited do not warrant denial of provisional release under section 110A merely because adjudication is pending or procedural irregularities are alleged.

---