Factual purity testing of seized gold dore bars meant no substantial question of law arose on provisional release.

Provisional release of seized gold dore bars was upheld because the dispute depended on factual testing of purity against the preferential tariff conditions and the permissible margin of error. Re-testing showed 25 bars below 95% purity, while one bar tested at 95.05%, which fell within the stated margin. The court treated the observation that even restricted or prohibited goods may be provisionally released as fact-specific and not a general rule. On that basis, no substantial question of law arose and the challenge to the Tribunal's direction did not succeed.

---

---

Issues: Whether provisional release of the seized gold dore bars was warranted in the facts of the case and whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the factual test results of the gold dore bars against the conditions in the preferential tariff notification and the permissible margin of error in purity testing. On re-testing, 25 bars were found to have purity below 95%, while one bar tested at 95.05%, which fell within the stated margin of error. The observation that even restricted or prohibited goods may be subject to provisional release was treated as confined to the facts of the case and not as a general expression of law. In these circumstances, the matter was purely factual.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the challenge to the Tribunal's direction for provisional release did not succeed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's direction for provisional release remained undisturbed and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute over import eligibility depends essentially on factual testing and the issue is confined to the case-specific application of the provisional release conditions, no substantial question of law arises.

---