Reshipment of imported goods and confiscation under customs law did not justify a stay in the departmental appeal.

The request to stay the Commissioner's order permitting reshipment of goods was rejected because the goods had already been sold and were not available when the show cause notice and the order were passed. The order was also based on the view that the goods were not liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, as they were covered by Open General Licence at the time of shipment. The possibility that related writ proceedings might succeed and render the appeal infructuous did not justify stay. The reshipment direction was outside the scope of the departmental appeal under Section 129D, and the stay application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner's order granting reshipment of the goods warranted stay in the departmental appeal.

Analysis: The goods had already been sold and were not available when the show cause notice and the Commissioner's order were passed. The order also proceeded on the footing that the goods were not liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act because they were covered by Open General Licence at the time of shipment. The grounds urged for stay, including the possibility of the appeal becoming infructuous if related writ proceedings succeeded, did not justify interference. The request regarding reshipment was outside the scope of the appeal under Section 129D of the Customs Act, and the non-availability of the goods was an additional reason against grant of stay.

Outcome: The application for stay was dismissed.

---