Provisional release of imported apples follows where a stayed minimum import price notification cannot justify detention as prohibited goods.

Imported apples detained solely under a minimum import price notification were entitled to provisional release because the notification had been stayed and no contrary order was shown. On the bills of entry and invoices, the consignment was stated at Rs. 50 per kg, meeting the prescribed threshold, so the notification could not justify treating the goods as prohibited on those facts. The Court also took into account the perishable nature of the goods and held that continued detention was unwarranted. The petitioner therefore obtained provisional release of the apples and expeditious assessment of the bill of entry in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner was entitled to provisional release of imported apples detained on the basis of Notification No. 5/2023; (ii) whether the notification could justify treating the consignment as prohibited goods where the imported value was stated to be at the minimum prescribed price and the goods were perishable.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner was entitled to provisional release of imported apples detained on the basis of Notification No. 5/2023.

Analysis: The consignment was detained only because the notification prescribing a minimum import price for apples had been relied upon. The Court noted the consistent view already taken by other High Courts and by an earlier order of the same Court granting provisional release in similar matters, together with the fact that the notification had been stayed and that no contrary or vacating order was shown.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to provisional release of the goods.

Issue (ii): whether the notification could justify treating the consignment as prohibited goods where the imported value was stated to be at the minimum prescribed price and the goods were perishable.

Analysis: On the bills of entry and invoices, the imported apples were shown at Rs. 50 per kg, and the embargo under the notification operated only where the value was below that threshold. The Court also emphasised the perishable nature of the goods and held that the consignment could not be treated as prohibited merely on the basis of the notification.

Conclusion: The notification did not justify detention or classification of the consignment as prohibited goods on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained provisional release of the imported apples and an expeditious assessment of the bill of entry in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a detention is founded solely on a minimum-import-price notification that is stayed and the imported consignment meets the stated threshold, provisional release of perishable goods is warranted rather than continued detention as prohibited goods.

---