Cross-objections survive appeal withdrawal, while misdeclared vehicle imports justify confiscation but usually not absolute confiscation.

Cross-objections under Section 129A(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 are treated as an independent statutory proceeding and remain maintainable even if the main departmental appeal is withdrawn, so the respondent's challenge to adverse findings still requires merits-based disposal. A motor vehicle misdeclared as used, but found to be new and imported in breach of import-policy and vehicle-law requirements, was held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d). However, because the goods were not prohibited in the strict sense and redemption is part of the statutory scheme, absolute confiscation was considered excessive. The proper course was confiscation with an option of redemption on payment of redemption fine and applicable duties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cross-objections filed by the respondent survive for consideration on merits after withdrawal of the departmental appeal under the Government Litigation Policy. (ii) Whether the imported vehicle, declared as used but found to be new and imported without compliance with import-policy and vehicle-law requirements, is liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether absolute confiscation was justified or redemption ought to have been allowed.

Issue (i): Whether cross-objections filed by the respondent survive for consideration on merits after withdrawal of the departmental appeal under the Government Litigation Policy.

Analysis: Section 129A(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 treats cross-objections as an independent statutory proceeding and requires them to be disposed of as if they were an appeal filed in time. Once cross-objections are duly filed, withdrawal of the main departmental appeal does not automatically extinguish the respondent's challenge to the adverse part of the order. The respondent's objection to absolute confiscation therefore required independent adjudication.

Conclusion: The cross-objections were maintainable and had to be decided on merits notwithstanding withdrawal of the departmental appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the imported vehicle, declared as used but found to be new and imported without compliance with import-policy and vehicle-law requirements, is liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether absolute confiscation was justified or redemption ought to have been allowed.

Analysis: The vehicle was found to have been mis-declared as used and imported in breach of the regulatory conditions governing import of motor vehicles. Such violation attracts confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, but the goods were not held to be prohibited goods in the strict sense. In the absence of exceptional reasons, and having regard to the statutory scheme of redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, absolute confiscation was considered excessive. The appropriate course was confiscation with an option to redeem on payment of redemption fine and applicable duties.

Conclusion: Confiscation under Section 111(d) was upheld, but absolute confiscation was set aside and redemption was directed on payment of redemption fine and applicable duties.

Final Conclusion: The respondent succeeded to the extent that the vehicle was not to remain absolutely confiscated, while the finding of confiscability was sustained and the matter was finally disposed of by allowing redemption on specified monetary terms.

Ratio Decidendi: Cross-objections under Section 129A(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 survive the withdrawal of the main appeal, and goods imported in breach of regulatory import conditions but not absolutely prohibited should ordinarily be released against redemption rather than subjected to absolute confiscation.

---