Redemption of restricted imported goods allowed despite confiscation, with importer's penalty reduced and director's penalty sustained.

Used imported multifunction printers were treated as restricted goods imported in breach of policy conditions, not as expressly prohibited goods merely because they were used. Confiscation could therefore stand, but absolute denial of redemption was not justified, and release on payment of redemption fine was directed. The importer's penalty was moderated in line with earlier similar matters and the extent of violation, while the managing director's separate penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 was maintained. The decision applies a proportionate approach to redemption and penalties in import policy violations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of imported used digital multifunction printers/devices as prohibited goods was sustainable and whether redemption was liable to be permitted. (ii) Whether the penalties imposed on the importer and its managing director required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of imported used digital multifunction printers/devices as prohibited goods was sustainable and whether redemption was liable to be permitted.

Analysis: The import was found to be of used multifunction devices having residual utility, and the dispute had already been settled in earlier comparable proceedings involving the same class of goods. The governing principles applied were that goods which are restricted or imported in breach of policy conditions are not, for that reason alone, treated as expressly prohibited for the limited purpose of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The imported machines were not accepted as waste merely because they were used, and confiscation could stand, but absolute denial of redemption was not justified. The Court followed the earlier view that redemption fine may be imposed where the goods are not expressly prohibited and can be released on payment of fine.

Conclusion: Confiscation was not sustained in its absolute form, and the goods were directed to be allowed for redemption on payment of redemption fine.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalties imposed on the importer and its managing director required interference.

Analysis: The penalty on the importer was reconsidered with reference to the consistent approach adopted in earlier identical matters and the extent of violation. The managing director's role attracted liability under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and there was no basis to disturb the separate penalty imposed on him. However, the importer's penalty was moderated in line with the same precedents and the overall relief granted in respect of redemption.

Conclusion: The importer's penalty was reduced, while the penalty on the managing director was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the confiscatory direction was displaced by a redemption order, the importer's monetary penalty was reduced, and the separate penalty on the managing director was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Used imported goods that are restricted rather than expressly prohibited may be confiscated for policy violation, but redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be denied merely on that ground, and penalties must be fixed on a proportionate and objective basis.

---