Denial of redemption options in cases of absolute confiscation is lawful when goods are prohibited under the Customs Act due to non-compliance with Minimum Import Prices.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“A)Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing and setting aside the Order-in-Original No. 17/ADC/Bhagwan Corporation/ICD-PPG/2021-22 dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2,to the extent it directs absolute confiscation of the imported goods without affording the Petitioner the statutory option of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962;

B) Quash and set aside the consequential Order-in-Appeal dated 17.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), whereby the Petitioner's appeal was dismissed solely on limitation, without consideration on merits;

C) Direct the Respondent Authorities to grant the Petitioner the statutory option of redemption of the confiscated goods on payment of appropriate redemption fine in lieu of absolute confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, as per law;

D)Quash and set aside the penalty of Rs.30,00,000/- imposed under Section 112 (a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, being arbitrary, excessive, and imposed without any finding of intent, suppression, or mens rea;

E) Direct the Respondent Authorities to permit the Petitioner to physically inspect the seized goods either in person or through an authorized representative, under proper supervision, so as to verify the condition and quality of the goods and to facilitate fair adjudication;

F) Direct the Respondent Authorities to issue a Detention, Demurrage, and Warehousing Charges Waiver Certificate in respect of the Petitioner's imported goods, which have been wrongfully detained/seized pursuant to the impugned proceedings, as the goods have been unjustifiably withheld solely on the basis of a single and disputed laboratory report, without affording any opportunity of re-testing, cross-examination, or verification in accordance with law; and consequently, the Petitioner cannot be burdened with detention, demurrage, or warehousing charges accrued due to the unlawful and arbitrary actions of the Respondents.;

G) Pass such other and further orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

Factual Matrix

2. The petitioner, M/s Bhagwan Corporation, a proprietorship concern through its proprietor Smt. Anju Goswami, is engaged in the business of import and trading of betel nuts, primarily boiled betel nuts, sourced mainly from Indonesia. The firm holds Importer Exporter Code (“IEC” hereinafter) No. ARNPG8663M and has been regularly undertaking such imports through declared and lawful channels.

3. In the ordinary course of its business, the petitioner imported two consignments of boiled betel nuts from Indonesia and filed Bill of Entry No. 9396149 dated 31.10.2020 and Bill of Entry No. 9829340 dated 04.12.2020 at ICD Patparganj, New Delhi. The goods were declared as Boiled Betel Nuts and classified by the petitioner under Customs Tariff Heading (“CTH” herei