Provisional release of seized imported goods: detention overturned where Customs relied on generalized allegations, not tangible evidence.

Provisional release of imported in-shell walnuts was ordered because detention lacked tangible material connecting the consignments to alleged irregularities; the seizure relied on generalized statements about other importers rather than specific evidence, so detention was arbitrary and unjustified. The court reasoned that Customs actions must be based on tangible, lawful reasons and not blanket presumptions; commercial disruption and property rights weigh against such coercive conditions. Writ jurisdiction was appropriate to vindicate equality and property rights, and the petition was disposed of accordingly with relief granted on these grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the facts of the case, the adjudicating authority was justified in imposing a bank guarantee of Rs. 60,00,000/- as a condition for provisional release of seized imported goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, or whether the goods should be provisionally released on furnishing a bond only.

Analysis: The Court examined the statutory provision permitting provisional release under Section 110A, which confers discretionary power on the adjudicating authority to impose security and conditions in view of facts of each case. The factual matrix was considered: the Bills of Entry had been assessed and full customs duty paid; no search or incriminating material specific to the petitioner was produced; the seizure and provisional release orders relied on broad/general findings relating to other importers and investigative activity in another jurisdiction. The Court held that imposition of coercive conditions such as a bank guarantee requires tangible material establishing the necessity to secure the revenue; a blanket application of conditions based on unrelated investigations into other importers was not justified. The Court noted authority and alternate remedies but proceeded under Article 226 because constitutional rights (Article 14 and Article 300-A) and absence of material on record warranted exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that the bank guarantee of Rs. 60,00,000/- was not justified by the material on record and the petitioner was entitled to provisional release of the goods on furnishing the bond directed in the provisional release order; the respondents were directed to release the goods within three days and to issue a certificate waiving demurrage.

---