2013 (12) TMI 460 - AT - Customs

Stay application - Release of seized goods - Redemption facility given - Seizure of betel nuts and vehicles - Held that - betel nuts under the Import and Export Policy, are not prohibited goods nor restricted goods. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has to give an option to redeem the goods to the owner. In view of the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, I find no infirmity in the impugned Order whereby an option is given to the owner to redeem the goods which are not prohibited or restricted goods - Stay denied.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confiscation of betel nuts and vehicles, and imposition of penalty.
- Contention of Revenue that betel nuts are liable for absolute confiscation and should not be released on payment of redemption fine.
- Interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding redemption of goods.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA stemmed from a case where a consignment of betel nuts was seized by Customs Authorities, leading to an adjudication resulting in the confiscation of the betel nuts and vehicles, along with the imposition of a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the Adjudication Order, allowing the respondent to redeem the goods upon payment of a redemption fine. The Revenue, in its appeal, argued that the betel nuts should face absolute confiscation and not be released upon payment of a redemption fine, contending that the goods were prohibited and not eligible for redemption.

Upon examining the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Tribunal noted that the section grants the officer adjudging confiscation the authority to provide an option for redemption in cases where goods are not prohibited or restricted. In this specific case, the betel nuts were not classified as prohibited or restricted goods under the Import and Export Policy. Therefore, the adjudicating authority was justified in offering the owner the option to redeem the goods. The Tribunal found no legal flaw in the impugned Order that allowed redemption of goods that were not prohibited or restricted. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision to allow redemption of the betel nuts and disposed of the Stay Petition accordingly. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 when determining the eligibility of goods for redemption, ensuring a fair and lawful adjudication process.