Supreme Court Orders Prompt Release of Export Shipment Despite Pending Challenge

The Supreme Court directed the respondent to effect the provisional release of the export consignment within ten days, despite a pending challenge to a previous order. The court emphasized that the administrative order should not hinder the relief sought in the interim application and disposed of the application accordingly. The court scheduled a follow-up on the case's progress after one month, along with similar pending matters.

---

---

Issues:
Interim order for provisional release of export consignment under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962; Compliance with conditions for provisional release; Delay in provisionally releasing goods despite compliance; Challenge of a previous order before the Supreme Court; Request for direction to accept Bank Guarantee and allow export.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition sought an interim order for the provisional release of an export consignment under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. A co-ordinate bench directed the adjudicating authority to pass an appropriate order considering all relevant materials, including a previous court order. The authority was required to pass the order within ten days, with the petition made returnable on a specified date.

2. The adjudicating authority, in compliance with the court's order, issued an order on March 11, 2021, for the provisional release of goods under specific conditions, including furnishing a bond and security. However, the petitioner claimed that despite meeting these conditions, the consignment had not been released, leading to a request for direction to accept a Bank Guarantee and allow export.

3. The respondent's counsel mentioned that a previous order was under challenge before the Supreme Court and requested time to file a reply affidavit with relevant facts. While not disputing the correctness of the contentions raised in the interim application, the counsel sought two weeks for the provisional release of goods, without prejudice to their rights in the pending Supreme Court proceedings.

4. After hearing arguments from both parties, the court found no reason to keep the application pending, as the adjudicating authority had already issued a reasoned order for provisional release. The court emphasized that the administrative order should not serve as a precedent to prevent granting the relief sought in the interim application. Consequently, the court disposed of the interim application, directing the respondents to effect the provisional release within ten days of receiving the order.

5. The court scheduled the writ petition, along with similar pending matters, for listing after one month, indicating a follow-up on the case's progress and related issues.

---