Re-export of seized imported goods allowed on security conditions to protect revenue while duty issues remain pending

Seized imported goods that had remained in custody for over a year were allowed to be re-exported because continued detention served no useful purpose, especially after samples had already been drawn and the respondents did not seriously oppose release. The Court balanced that relief with revenue protection by directing the petitioner to execute a bond for the differential duty payable and furnish a bank guarantee for 5% of the re-determined value. Re-export was ordered to be completed within 12 days of compliance, ensuring temporary release without prejudice to adjudication of duty liability.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to re-export the seized imported goods, and if so, on what conditions.

Analysis: The goods had remained under seizure for more than a year, samples had already been drawn, and the Court found that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the seizure. The respondents did not seriously oppose re-export. The Court therefore directed permission for re-export, while balancing the interests of revenue by requiring security for the differential duty and a bank guarantee.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to re-export the goods on executing a bond for the total value of the differential duty payable and furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to 5% of the re-determined value, with re-export to be completed within 12 days of compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized imported goods have remained in custody for a prolonged period and continued detention serves no useful purpose, re-export may be permitted on conditions securing the revenue interest pending adjudication.

---