Undervaluation allegation alone cannot justify detention of freely importable goods or refusal of re-export pending customs adjudication.

Mere allegation of undervaluation does not justify continued detention of freely importable goods or refusal to permit re-export when the goods are neither prohibited nor contraband. The Court held that customs authorities may continue investigation and adjudication independently, but the importer's relief should not be withheld solely on that allegation where Revenue interests can be protected by an undertaking and bond. On that basis, the detained goods were ordered to be released on safeguard conditions and the re-export of the containers was permitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported goods that were freely importable could be detained or re-export withheld merely on the allegation of undervaluation, and whether provisional release or re-export could be ordered pending adjudication.

Analysis: The goods were not contraband and did not fall in the negative list. The only substantive allegation was undervaluation or misdeclaration. The Court held that such an allegation, by itself, did not justify refusing permission to re-export the goods or keeping them under detention when samples had already been drawn and the authorities were free to proceed with investigation and adjudication. The interest of Revenue could be protected by requiring the importer to furnish an undertaking and bond and to remain bound by any future action under the customs law.

Conclusion: The allegation of undervaluation was not a valid ground to refuse the relief sought. The detained goods were directed to be released on safeguard conditions, and re-export of the containers was permitted.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere allegation of undervaluation, without the goods being prohibited or contraband, does not justify continued detention or refusal of re-export where Revenue interests can be secured through bond and undertaking, and adjudication may proceed independently.

---