Court allows redemption of restricted Canadian Green Peas on fine payment, emphasizing Customs Act distinction.

The court allowed the redemption of the imported goods, Canadian Green Peas, which were restricted but not prohibited, on payment of a fine of Rs. 12,00,000 in addition to the penalty of Rs. 4,00,000 imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. The court emphasized the distinction between prohibited and restricted goods under the Customs Act, noting that restricted goods could be redeemed on payment of a fine. Citing judicial precedents, the court held that treating importers differently based on the port of entry would be unjust.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of imported goods.
2. Applicability of Section 125 of the Customs Act for redemption of confiscated goods.
3. Distinction between prohibited and restricted goods under the Customs Act.
4. Judicial precedents and their applicability to the case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The appellant imported 210 MT of Canadian Green Peas, which were subject to import restrictions as per DGFT Notification No. 37/2015-2020. The Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, confiscated the goods absolutely and imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000. The appellant did not dispute the confiscation but sought redemption of the goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act.

2. Applicability of Section 125 of the Customs Act for Redemption of Confiscated Goods:
The appellant argued that Section 125 provides an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. The section states that for prohibited goods, the adjudicating officer has discretion, but for other goods, redemption is mandatory. The appellant relied on judicial precedents where restricted goods were allowed redemption on payment of a fine, arguing that their goods, though restricted, should be treated similarly.

3. Distinction Between Prohibited and Restricted Goods Under the Customs Act:
The judgment emphasized the distinction between prohibited and restricted goods. Prohibited goods are those with an intrinsic taint, harmful to public health or national security, and are subject to absolute prohibition. Restricted goods, on the other hand, are commercial goods whose import is subject to certain conditions, such as obtaining a license. The court noted that the impugned goods, being restricted, could be redeemed on payment of a fine.

4. Judicial Precedents and Their Applicability to the Case:
The appellant cited several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Atul Automations Pvt. Ltd., which allowed redemption of restricted goods on payment of a fine. The court also referred to the Kerala High Court's decision in the case of M/s Harihar Collections, where similar goods were allowed to be redeemed. The court found that treating importers at different ports differently would be unjust and inconsistent with judicial pronouncements.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the impugned goods, being restricted and not absolutely prohibited, could be redeemed on payment of a fine. The appeal was disposed of by allowing redemption of the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 12,00,000, in addition to the penalty of Rs. 4,00,000 imposed by the Commissioner.

(Order was pronounced in Open Court on 16/12/2020)

---