Compulsory registration and redemption of restricted imports turn on clear schedule coverage and substantial compliance

Used multifunction devices were not shown to fall within the amended compulsory registration schedule for printers, scanners, copying machines or duplicators, so the registration requirement did not apply. On the customs and trade compliance issues, multifunction devices were treated as restricted rather than prohibited goods, redemption under the Customs Act remained available where confiscation was otherwise justified, and substantial compliance with hazardous waste and foreign trade requirements was accepted; the matter was therefore fit for adjudication of redemption fine and penalty rather than absolute confiscation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether used multifunction devices imported by the respondents required compulsory registration under the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012. (ii) Whether the alleged non-compliance with the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and the Foreign Trade regime justified absolute confiscation, or whether the goods were redeemable on payment of fine and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether used multifunction devices imported by the respondents required compulsory registration under the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012.

Analysis: The relevant schedule to the compulsory registration order, as amended, covered printers, plotters, scanners and copying machines/duplicators, but the imported multifunction devices did not fall within those entries. On a combined reading of the order and the amendment, the goods were not shown to be covered by the compulsory registration regime invoked by the Department.

Conclusion: The requirement of compulsory registration was held inapplicable to the imported goods, in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged non-compliance with the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and the Foreign Trade regime justified absolute confiscation, or whether the goods were redeemable on payment of fine and penalty.

Analysis: The Court treated the earlier ruling in Atul Automations as applicable, holding that multifunction devices are restricted goods and not prohibited goods, and that redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 remains available where the statutory scheme permits confiscation with redemption. It further held that Form No. 6 was not required for the goods in question and that the record disclosed substantial compliance, with any lapse being procedural rather than fatal. In that setting, the Tribunal's order remanding the matter for determination of redemption fine and penalty was upheld.

Conclusion: The challenge to redemption and remand failed, and the respondents were held entitled to the benefit of redemption subject to adjudication of fine and penalty.

Final Conclusion: The appeals did not disclose any substantial question of law and the Tribunal's approach permitting redemption of the seized goods was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Restricted imported goods are redeemable under the Customs Act where the applicable foreign trade and environmental compliance requirements are substantially met, and a compulsory registration obligation cannot be imposed unless the imported goods are clearly covered by the operative schedule.

---