Provisional release of perishable imported goods must be reconsidered on conditions, not refused outright on a preliminary quarantine objection.

Goods cleared for home consumption cease to fall within the statutory category of imported goods for the limited purpose of refusing reconsideration of provisional release, especially where the clearance followed departmental examination. For seized perishable consignments, non-production of an attested phytosanitary certificate from the country of origin does not automatically justify outright denial at the provisional stage. Provisional release under customs law should be reconsidered on suitable conditions that protect revenue while addressing plant quarantine concerns, rather than being finally refused before adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether goods cleared for home consumption continue to remain imported goods for the purpose of seizure and provisional release; and (ii) whether provisional release of the seized consignments should be directed in view of the plant quarantine requirements, the perishable nature of the goods, and the need to protect revenue.

Issue (i): whether goods cleared for home consumption continue to remain imported goods for the purpose of seizure and provisional release.

Analysis: One consignment had already been cleared after examination and investigation. Once goods are cleared for home consumption, they fall outside the statutory definition of imported goods under Section 2(25) of the Customs Act, 1962. In such a situation, mere suspicion on the basis of later materials was not sufficient to deny reconsideration of provisional release, especially when the prior clearance had been granted after departmental examination.

Conclusion: The goods that had been cleared for home consumption were not to be treated as continuing imported goods for the limited purpose of refusing reconsideration of provisional release.

Issue (ii): whether provisional release of the seized consignments should be directed in view of the plant quarantine requirements, the perishable nature of the goods, and the need to protect revenue.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether non-production of the attested phytosanitary certificate from the country of origin justified outright denial of provisional release. The record showed a phytosanitary certificate from the country of re-export referring to the country of origin, and the goods were perishable. The governing power under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 permits release on suitable conditions, and the matter did not require final adjudication at this stage. The adjudicating authority was therefore required to reconsider the request in a judicious manner while safeguarding revenue and addressing the plant quarantine objection.

Conclusion: The request for provisional release had to be reconsidered and appropriate conditions could be imposed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent that the rejection of provisional release was set aside and the matters were sent back for fresh consideration of provisional release on suitable conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized goods are perishable and the statutory objection is not conclusive at the provisional stage, provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 should be reconsidered on reasonable conditions rather than finally refused, and goods already cleared for home consumption cannot be treated as continuing imported goods under Section 2(25) of the Customs Act, 1962.

---