Provisional release of imported perishable goods cannot be conditioned on onerous security without justification for departing from earlier practice.

Imported edible commodities were directed to be provisionally released on reduced security where earlier consignments of the same nature had been released on bank guarantees of 16% to 28%, and no material justified a stricter condition for the later consignments. The Court found that insisting on a full-value bank guarantee for perishable goods, without a demonstrated factual distinction or departure from prior departmental practice, was harsh and unreasonable. Provisional release was therefore ordered on substantially reduced bank guarantees, together with the required bond, and the petitioner was allowed to seek return of the earlier guarantee by representation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to provisional release of the imported goods on reduced bank guarantee instead of the 100% bank guarantee insisted upon by the customs authorities.

Analysis: The goods were of the same nature as earlier consignments of the petitioner, which had been provisionally released on bank guarantees ranging from 16% to 28%. No acceptable material was placed to justify a different treatment for the impugned consignments. The goods were perishable edible commodities, and the insistence on a full-value bank guarantee of Rs. 25,00,000 was found to be harsh and unreasonable in the absence of any demonstrated distinction in facts. The Court also took note of the prior departmental practice and the absence of material showing why a stricter yardstick was warranted for the present consignments.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to provisional release of the goods on furnishing bank guarantees of Rs. 3,49,000 for the first bill of entry and Rs. 2,00,000 for the second bill of entry, along with the bond required by the departmental letter.

Final Conclusion: The impugned detention was modified by directing provisional release of both consignments on substantially reduced security, and the petitioner was permitted to seek return of the earlier bank guarantee by representation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where similarly placed imported goods had earlier been provisionally released on lower security and no material justified a departure, insistence on an onerous bank guarantee for provisional release is arbitrary and unreasonable.

---