In the present case, since the cargo has already been detained and is under Customs control pursuant to proceedings initiated under the Customs Act, 1962 (including action Section 49 and related provisions), any proposal to re-export must be examined in the context of confiscation, adjudication, and penal consequences. Once goods are seized or held for alleged violations in import documentation or compliance, the importer and other concerned parties may be exposed not only to civil liabilities (duty, fine, penalty) but also to criminal implications under Sections 132-135 of the Customs Act if there is any element of misdeclaration, suppression, or intent to evade law. Re-export does not automatically wipe out past violations; therefore, the legal implication is that even if Customs permits re-export, proceedings for confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty may still continue unless specifically compounded or dropped by a reasoned order.
Re-export of confiscated or detained goods is permissible in limited circumstances, but only with express approval of the Customs authorities after adjudication or through a specific order permitting provisional release or re-export. Under Sections 110A, 125, and allied provisions, Customs may allow redemption of confiscated goods on payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation, after which re-export may be considered, especially where the goods are not prohibited per se but suffer from procedural or documentary non-compliance. However, the risks include imposition of heavy redemption fine, penalty on the importer or consignee, demurrage and detention charges, and possible prosecution if mens rea is alleged. Further, since the product is agricultural waste for animal feed, any violation of DGFT, FSSAI, Plant Quarantine, or environmental norms can complicate re-export.
Procedurally, the correct course is to participate in the adjudication proceedings initiated by Customs, respond to the show cause notice, and place on record a clear request for re-export of the cargo. An application should be moved before the Adjudicating Authority seeking either (a) provisional release for the limited purpose of re-export under Section 110A, or (b) redemption under Section 125 with permission to re-export. This will involve submission of all relevant documents, Bill of Lading, Invoice, Packing List, Contract, BOE, Customs notice, test reports (if any), correspondence with the foreign supplier, and a written undertaking to bear costs. Approval from the shipping line, port authorities, and possibly DGFT/other regulators may also be required before physical movement is allowed.
From a strategic and practical standpoint, it is advisable to negotiate the quantum of fine penalty and coordinate with Customs, the shipping line, and the port. You should simultaneously seek a waiver or reduction of demurrage from the port and detention charges from the shipping line, citing the Customs hold. Ensure that no admission is made that suggests deliberate misdeclaration unless supported by facts, as this may trigger criminal prosecution. All communications should be documented, timelines strictly followed, and a cost-benefit analysis done. Redemption and re-export are commercially better than contesting confiscation, but only if penalties and logistics costs are not much. This is only prima facie opinion; you need to share relevant documents that can be reviewed to give you a more precise, case-specific opinion and strategy.
