Redemption of confiscated prohibited imports denied where finality of customs penalties and misuse of writ jurisdiction defeated relief

Discretionary power to grant redemption of confiscated prohibited goods cannot be exercised to circumvent the statutory appellate scheme; because confiscation and penalty had attained finality and the Customs Act provides specific remedies, the writ petition was not a permissible surrogate appeal and was dismissed. The declared classification attracting Minimum Import Price and import prohibition was found to be legally untenable and evasive; the petitioner relied on an overruled advance ruling and failed to address misclassification and MIP breach, leading to adverse findings. The petitioner's inordinate delay, laches and lack of bona fides in pursuing statutory remedies reinforced refusal to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction, and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled, under Article 226, to have the Order in Original set aside or read down so as to grant the statutory option of redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of goods held to be prohibited by DGFT Notification No. 20/2015-20 dated 25.07.2018 and whether the writ court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction where the statutory appeal was dismissed as time barred and there is prolonged delay in approaching the High Court.

Analysis: The statutory framework provides a specific appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 with strict limitation and condonation limits; beyond the outer limit the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to condone delay. Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 confers discretion (use of "may") on the adjudicating authority to grant redemption and does not create an absolute right to redemption where goods are prohibited under the import policy. DGFT Notification No. 20/2015-20 dated 25.07.2018 coupled with MIP conditions renders the goods prohibited if declared CIF is below the statutory threshold, and prohibition by the executive policy cannot be overridden by exercising redemption where the statutory scheme and policy preclude release. Principles of delay and laches and the discretionary nature of writ relief in fiscal matters preclude exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction where the petitioner allowed the statutory order to attain finality by inaction and did not challenge the appellate authority's dismissal on limitation. The petitioner's ancillary pleas (retesting, waiver of charges, reduction/setting aside of penalty) are consequential on the primary challenge to confiscation and cannot be independently entertained once confiscation and penalty have become final by reason of statutory appeal being time barred and the petitioner's unexplained delay.

Conclusion: The petition is dismissed; no relief is granted to compel grant of redemption under Section 125 or to set aside absolute confiscation or penalty given the prohibition under the DGFT notification, the discretionary scope of redemption, the finality of the time barred appellate order, and the petitioner's inordinate delay.

---