Redemption under Customs law cannot be made subject to forced re-export, and detention-related charges cannot be imposed on a blameless importer.

Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits redemption of confiscated goods in lieu of confiscation, but does not authorise an adjudicating or appellate authority to impose re-export as a condition of redemption. A direction requiring re-export therefore exceeded the statutory power and was set aside. Where the goods remained with customs during pending proceedings and the importer was not responsible for the delay, demurrage or storage charges could not be fastened on the importer. The charges were quashed and release of the goods was ordered without further condition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a condition of re-export could be imposed while permitting redemption of confiscated goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) whether demurrage or storage charges could be sustained against the importer in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether a condition of re-export could be imposed while permitting redemption of confiscated goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Redemption under Section 125 is an option in lieu of confiscation and the provision does not authorise the adjudicating authority or appellate authority to compel re-export as a condition for redemption. The statutory power is limited to granting redemption on payment of fine or refusing redemption, and a conditional direction requiring re-export travels beyond the authority conferred by law.

Conclusion: The condition of re-export was not legally sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether demurrage or storage charges could be sustained against the importer in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The goods remained with the customs authorities during the pendency of proceedings and the importer was not at fault for the prolonged detention. In these circumstances, the demand for demurrage or storage charges could not be justified, and the direction treating such charges as payable by the importer could not stand.

Conclusion: The demurrage or storage charges were quashed and the goods were directed to be released without condition.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, the impugned condition of re-export was invalid, and the importer was entitled to release of the goods without further burden arising from demurrage.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits redemption in lieu of confiscation but does not authorise a condition compelling re-export, and charges attributable to prolonged retention of goods during proceedings cannot be fastened on an importer where the delay is not of the importer's making.

---