Redemption of confiscated goods triggers mandatory duty under the Customs Act, and appellate remand for fresh adjudication is permissible.

Redemption of confiscated goods attracts a mandatory duty liability under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act in addition to redemption fine; that liability follows automatically when the owner or possessor exercises the option to redeem and does not depend on proceedings under Section 28(1). The appellate authority may also lawfully remand the matter for fresh adjudication under Section 128A(3) where reconsideration of the correct legal position is warranted. The commentary therefore treats duty on redemption as a statutory consequence and recognises the Commissioner (Appeals)' power to send the matter back for de novo decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether duty becomes payable under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 when confiscated goods are redeemed by the owner or person from whose possession they were seized, and whether such liability is independent of Section 28(1); (ii) whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had power to remand the matter for de novo adjudication with directions.

Issue (i): whether duty becomes payable under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 when confiscated goods are redeemed by the owner or person from whose possession they were seized, and whether such liability is independent of Section 28(1)

Analysis: Section 125 operates as a composite scheme. The option of redemption under sub-section (1) is available to the owner of the goods, or where the owner is unknown, to the person from whose possession or custody the goods were seized. Sub-section (2) then mandates that once redemption fine is imposed, the same person shall, in addition, be liable to pay the duty and charges payable in respect of the goods. The liability flows automatically from the redemption provision and does not depend on invocation of Section 28(1), which deals with duty not levied, short-levied, or erroneously refunded. Since the appellant claimed ownership of the vehicle and exercised redemption, duty liability followed as a statutory consequence.

Conclusion: The duty liability upon redemption was rightly treated as arising under Section 125(2), and the appellant's objection based on Section 28(1) failed.

Issue (ii): whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had power to remand the matter for de novo adjudication with directions

Analysis: Section 128A(3) empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass such order as he thinks just and proper, including confirming, modifying, annulling, or referring the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication where warranted. The appellate authority's direction for reconsideration of the correct legal position was within the statutory appellate power and could not be treated as an excess of jurisdiction. The remand therefore remained a legally permissible appellate disposition.

Conclusion: The remand order was within jurisdiction and did not suffer from legal infirmity.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed in full, and the remand for de novo adjudication was sustained, leaving the Revenue's position undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: On redemption of confiscated goods, the liability to pay duty and charges is mandatorily attracted under Section 125(2) in addition to redemption fine, and the appellate authority may lawfully remand the matter for fresh adjudication under Section 128A.

---