Court orders petitioner to pay charges, costs, and penalty for seized goods redemption promptly.

The court directed the petitioner to pay redemption charges, costs, and penalty within two weeks for the redemption and re-export of seized goods, emphasizing compliance within the specified timeframe and warning against violations post-redemption. The court found the authorities' inaction in releasing the goods after 5 years unsustainable, noting no legal impediment for redemption as per the adjudication order. Despite the respondent's argument of untimeliness, the court held that the petitioner's representations were not duly considered, leading to prejudice.

---

---

Issues:
Writ petition for mandamus to release and permit re-export of seized goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner was intercepted by Air Intelligence Unit carrying precious/semi-precious stones, which were seized and later confiscated under Customs Act 1962. A denova adjudication took place, resulting in an order allowing redemption and re-export of the goods within 45 days on payment of a redemption fine. The petitioner failed to redeem the goods within the stipulated time due to financial constraints.

The petitioner, in 2015, sought to redeem the goods for re-export, stating the stones were still with the authorities. The petitioner argued for redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act due to financial reasons. The petitioner indicated willingness to pay the fine and penalty for re-export, but the communication was not considered by the authorities.

The respondent contended that the petitioner's request, made after 4 1/2 years, was untimely and should be dismissed. However, the court noted that the authorities failed to consider the petitioner's representations and reminders, causing prejudice despite the order allowing redemption for re-export. No legal impediment existed for the authorities to act as per the adjudication order for release on payment of fine and penalty.

The court observed the goods were still available with customs authorities after 5 years, supporting the petitioner's claim. The inaction of the authorities in explaining the continued detention was deemed unsustainable. The court directed the petitioner to pay redemption charges, costs, and penalty within two weeks for redemption and re-export, warning of consequences for any violations post-redemption.

The writ petition was disposed of, mandating the petitioner's compliance within the specified timeframe for redemption and re-export, with a caution against violations post-redemption.

---