Re-export of seized imported goods permitted with revenue security after prolonged custody and pending adjudication.

Seized imported goods may be permitted for re-export where prolonged custody serves no useful purpose, even without examining the merits of alleged misclassification or undervaluation. The Madras High Court noted that samples had already been drawn and the parties accepted revenue-protective safeguards, so re-export could be allowed in the facts discussed. Permission was made conditional on execution of a bond for the differential duty and furnishing of a bank guarantee equal to 5% of the redetermined value, with re-export to follow within 12 days of compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled 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 their continued retention. Without entering into the merits of the allegations regarding misclassification or undervaluation, the Court accepted that re-export could be permitted in the facts of the case. The parties also agreed on protective conditions to secure the revenue pending adjudication.

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

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by granting permission for re-export of the seized goods, with revenue-protective conditions imposed pending adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized goods have remained in custody for a prolonged period and continued retention serves no useful purpose, re-export may be permitted subject to adequate security for the revenue pending adjudication.

---