2026-VIL-1017-CESTAT-CHE-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Confiscation and Redemption Fine for Re-exported Prohibited Goods - Appellant imported miscellaneous goods including prohibited cosmetic items in violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, along with goods having quantity mis-declarations - Adjudicating authority confiscated the goods under section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed redemption fine, and granted permission for re-export - Whether confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine can be imposed when permission is granted for re-exporting the confiscated goods – HELD - Confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, is mandatory when goods are imported in breach of statutory provisions and become offending goods liable for confiscation - The Supreme Court's interpretation of the word "liable" establishes that both confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty on the concerned person are not discretionary but mandatory. Re-export permission is a sequentially separate administrative process that comes into operation only after the importer redeems the confiscated goods by paying redemption fine. Confiscation is a necessary precedent action before administrative permission for export is granted. The bundling of the re-export permission with the quasi-judicial order does not alter this sequence of events - It is open to the adjudicating authority to impose both redemption fine and penalty when permission is granted for re-exporting the goods. Therefore, imposition of redemption fine on re-export of prohibited goods cannot be faulted - The matter be remanded to the original authority to examine afresh and state the basis of arriving at the revised value before determining the duty, interest, fine, and penalty, following principles of natural justice - The appeal is disposed of

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page