Redemption of confiscated gold upheld over absolute confiscation, with limited waiver of warehouse charges after appellate relief.

Where detained gold articles were not shown to be part of commercial smuggling or comparable aggravated misconduct, redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld instead of absolute confiscation, with release permitted on payment of redemption fine, customs duty and penalty. The revisional and appellate authorities treated absolute confiscation as an unreasonable exercise of discretion on the facts, and the Court sustained that approach. For warehouse charges, once redemption and release had been allowed, continued recovery for the post-appellate period was found unjustified, and waiver was granted from the appellate order date until actual release.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detained gold articles were liable to absolute confiscation or redemption and release on payment of fine and duty. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to waiver of warehouse charges from the date of the appellate order till actual release.

Issue (i): Whether the detained gold articles were liable to absolute confiscation or redemption and release on payment of fine and duty.

Analysis: The detention and adjudication concerned gold articles carried by the petitioner, which were treated by the customs authorities as attracting confiscation and penalty. The appellate authority had modified the order of absolute confiscation and permitted redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 on payment of redemption fine, customs duty and penalty. The Revisional Authority affirmed that approach, noting that the goods were not shown to be part of a commercial smuggling operation, that the petitioner was not found to be a habitual offender, and that absolute confiscation was not a reasonable exercise of discretion on the facts.

Conclusion: Redemption and release of the detained gold articles on payment of the stipulated fine, duty and penalty was upheld, and absolute confiscation was not sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to waiver of warehouse charges from the date of the appellate order till actual release.

Analysis: Once the appellate authority had permitted redemption and release of the goods on payment of the prescribed amounts, the continued burden of warehouse charges for the period after that order was held to be unjustified. The Court therefore granted relief limited to the period during which release should have followed the appellate determination.

Conclusion: Waiver of warehouse charges was granted for the period from 27.06.2025 until actual release of the goods.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by directing release of the gold articles on compliance with the redemption and duty conditions, while also granting limited relief against warehouse charges for the post-appellate period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscated goods are not shown to be connected with commercial smuggling or a comparable aggravated prohibition, redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 may be permitted in the proper exercise of discretion instead of absolute confiscation.

---