Provisional release of seized goods cannot justify harsh cash security where a job worker offers bond and duty payment.

Rule 206(3) allows provisional release of seized goods on a bond in proper form with such security as the Collector may reasonably require, but the discretion is not automatic or unlimited. Where the applicant was only a job worker, the goods were said to be semi-finished, and there was willingness to pay duty and execute a bond, insisting on 25% cash security was considered harsh and inequitable. The cash-security condition was therefore quashed, and the bond was directed to be modified by deleting the clause requiring later production of the goods.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on provisional release of seized goods under Rule 206(3), the authority could insist on cash security of 25% of the bond amount from a job worker.

Analysis: Rule 206(3) permits release of seized goods pending adjudication on taking a bond in the proper form with such security as the Collector may require. The power to require security is discretionary and must be exercised reasonably to serve the interests of justice. On the facts, the petitioner was only a job worker, claimed that the goods were semi-finished, and had expressed willingness to pay duty and execute a bond. In these circumstances, insisting upon cash security to the extent of 25% of the bond value was held to be harsh and inequitable, and the rule did not mandate such security in every case.

Conclusion: The requirement of 25% cash security was quashed, and the bond was directed to be suitably modified by deleting the clause regarding later production of the goods.

---