Restricted imports and redemption rights: used multifunction devices were not liable to absolute confiscation despite lack of authorisation.

Old and used multifunction devices and printers imported without authorization were treated as restricted goods, not prohibited goods, so absolute confiscation was not justified and redemption under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 had to be considered. The hazardous-waste characterisation was rejected, and the applicable waste schedule was treated as satisfied, so the more stringent hazardous-waste regime could not be used to defeat redemption. Objections based on compulsory registration and BIS standards also failed because the composite multifunction device was not shown to fall within the specific goods covered by that regime, and standards for individual constituent machines were held inapplicable. The matter was remitted only for fresh determination of redemption fine and penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether old and used multifunction devices and printers imported without authorization were liable to be treated as prohibited goods warranting absolute confiscation, or as restricted goods eligible for redemption under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether the compulsory registration and BIS-based objections could sustain denial of redemption and confiscation on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether old and used multifunction devices and printers imported without authorization were liable to be treated as prohibited goods warranting absolute confiscation, or as restricted goods eligible for redemption under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The import was admittedly without the prescribed authorization, but the goods were treated as restricted rather than prohibited. The governing distinction between prohibited and restricted goods, read with the scheme of the foreign trade law and the customs law, required redemption to be considered for restricted imports made without authorization. The classification of the goods as hazardous waste was not accepted, and the settled position that such multifunction devices fall within the category of other wastes was applied. The conditions in the relevant waste schedule were found to be complied with, and the requirements applicable to hazardous waste could not be imported into the case.

Conclusion: The goods were not liable to absolute confiscation and were required to be offered for redemption under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (ii): Whether the compulsory registration and BIS-based objections could sustain denial of redemption and confiscation on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The objection based on compulsory registration was rejected because the imported goods, as a composite multifunctional device, were not shown to fall within the specific goods covered by the registration regime. The standards applicable to individual constituent machines were held inapplicable to the composite import. The reasoning of the lower authorities on this aspect was found inconsistent with the settled legal position.

Conclusion: The BIS-based objection was not sustainable as a ground to sustain absolute confiscation.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent that absolute confiscation was set aside and redemption became mandatory, but the matter was sent back for fresh determination of redemption fine and penalty in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods that are restricted rather than prohibited cannot be denied redemption merely because they were imported without authorization, and the hazardous-waste regime cannot be applied to defeat the redemption entitlement where the goods fall within the legally recognised category of other wastes.

---