Release of seized goods and refund of penalty deposits cannot be withheld absent a High Court stay.

The Tribunal held that, where its final order had already set aside confiscation and penalties and granted consequential relief, pendency of a departmental revision before the High Court did not by itself justify withholding release of the seized gold biscuits, vehicle, or sale proceeds, or refund of penalty amounts deposited. In the absence of any stay order from the High Court restraining implementation, the relief earlier directed remained operative and was enforceable. The applicants were therefore entitled to release of the seized goods or sale proceeds and refund of the deposited penalties within the time fixed by the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to release of the seized gold biscuits and vehicle, and refund of the penalty amounts deposited pursuant to the Tribunal's stay order, in the absence of any stay from the High Court.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that its earlier final order had set aside the confiscation and penalties and granted consequential relief. The Department relied on a pending revision before the High Court, but no stay order restraining release of the seized goods, vehicle, or deposited amounts was produced. In these circumstances, the pendency of the revision did not justify withholding the relief already granted.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to release of the seized goods or sale proceeds and to refund of the penalty amounts deposited, within the time directed by the Tribunal.

---