Confiscation requires a specified, established contravention and procedural safeguards; mobile phone re-export remained permissible without fine or penalty.

Imported mobile phones proposed for re-export could not be confiscated where the departmental communication neither specified nor established the contravention said to attract confiscation and denied statutory notice and opportunity of defence. Its jurisdictional basis and manner of issuance were also deficient. A re-export request prompted by a GST-related pricing change did not, on the recorded facts, demonstrate improper importation, misconduct, or mala fide intent. Accordingly, confiscation lacked a legal basis, redemption fine and penalty were not imposable, and re-export was permissible without those exactions.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported mobile phones sought to be re-exported were liable to confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for alleged breach of import restrictions.

Analysis: The appellate order was sustained because the departmental communication imposing confiscation consequences neither specified or established the alleged contravention attracting confiscation nor afforded the importer the statutory safeguards of notice and opportunity of defence. The communication was also found deficient in jurisdiction and in the manner of issuance. The request for re-export following a change in the GST-related pricing structure did not, on the facts recorded, establish improper importation, misconduct or mala fide intent. Consequently, the basis for confiscation and consequential fine and penalty was absent.

Conclusion: The goods were not liable to confiscation, and redemption fine and penalty were not imposable; re-export was permissible without those exactions.

---