The exercise of discretion under Section 125 of the Customs Act in the redemption of restricted goods imported with authority for determination of the redemption fine and penalty, as well as the substantial compliance with the relevant laws and rules, were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

B V Nagarathna, J. - Though these appeals are listed to consider I.A.No.4/2020 filed by the respondents seeking vacating of the interim order granted by this Court, with consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, they are heard finally.

2. The Revenue through Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore 1, has assailed the common order dated 20/12/2019, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, [hereinafter, referred to as "the Tribunal", for the sake of convenience], in File Nos.C/20971/2019 and C/20974/2019. By the said order, the Tribunal remanded the matter for the purpose of adjudicating upon the redemption fine and penalty to be paid by the respondent in respect of the goods imported, in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter, referred to as "the Act", for the sake of brevity] and to complete the process of the said adjudication within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order issued by the Tribunal, these appeals have been filed by the Revenue.

3. Briefly stated, the facts in CSTA.No.5/2020 are that the respondent in this appeal imported 104 units of used digital multifunctional printers/devices ("MFDs") of various brands with standard accessories and attachments of declared value of Rs.33,01,195/-. According to the Chartered Engineer, value of the said goods is Rs.41,23,213/-. The Department was of the opinion that the declared value did not conform to the transaction value in terms of Section 14 of the Act and liable for confiscation in terms of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for the sake of convenience) and the value had to be re-determined under Rule 9 of the said Rules. The Department was also of the opinion that the product MFDs imported by the respondent did not conform to the standards prescribed under Rule 13(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the H&OW Rules" for the sake of brevity). The contention of the Department was also that the imported goods was also not as per the standard prescribed by the Indian Quality Standards under the import policy and the compulsory registration order was not obtained from the Bureau of Indian Standards ("BIS", for short) nor was any exemption certificate produced. Show-cause notice was issued as to why the goods ought not to be seized and penalty imposed. The Original Authority passed an order in Original No.78/2018 dated 28/12/2018. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was also dismissed. Hence, respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which has passed the impugned order by setting aside the absolute confiscation and remanded the matter for determination of redemption fine and penalty. Consequently, by the common impugned order dated 20/12/2019, the appeal filed by the respondent herein was disposed of with the aforesaid relief.

4. Briefly stated, the facts in CSTA.No.4/2020 are that the respondent in this appeal imported 104 units of used digital multifunctional printers/devices ("MFDs") of various brands with standard accessories and attachments of declared value of Rs.15,13,655/-. According to the Chartered Engineer, value of the said goods is Rs.18,53,945/-. The Department was of the opinion that the declared value did not conform to the transaction value in terms of Section 14 of the Act and liable for confiscation in terms of Rule 12 of the Rules and the value had to be re-determined under Rule 9 of the said Rules. The Department was also of the opinion that the product MFDs imported by the respondent did not conform to the standards prescribed under Rule 13(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the H&OW Rules. The contention of the Department was also that the imported goods was also not as p