Court orders return of gold chain to petitioner, emphasizing entitlement until lawfully altered.

The Court directed the fourth respondent to return a gold chain to the petitioner within three weeks upon payment of fines and penalties, as the Appellate Authority's decision favored the petitioner and there was no stay on the order pending a revision application. The Court emphasized the petitioner's entitlement to the jewel until the order was lawfully altered, disposing of the Writ Petition without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Issuance of Writ of Mandamus for release of Gold Chain
2. Pending representation to first respondent
3. Department's non-acceptance of Order-in-Appeal
4. Compliance with conditions imposed by the Appellate Authority

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to release a Gold Chain weighing 119 grams. This petition was in response to an order of absolute confiscation of the Gold jewel by the Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Customs, which was later reviewed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) on 28.09.2015. The Appellate Authority found that the petitioner did not conceal the gold jewel and had no previous cases against him, leading to the decision that absolute confiscation was not warranted. Instead, the petitioner was given the option of redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, with a fine of Rs. 90,000 and a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000. The petitioner sought implementation of this order for the release of the gold chain.

2. The petitioner's representation to the first respondent had been pending since December 2015 without any response, prompting the petitioner to approach the Court for relief. Despite a counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs stating that a Revision Application had been filed challenging the Order-in-Appeal, the Court emphasized that until the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) was modified, the petitioner was entitled to the return of the jewel upon compliance with the conditions set by the Appellate Authority. As there was no stay on the order, the Court directed the fourth respondent to return the jewel to the petitioner within three weeks upon payment of the fine and personal penalty, along with executing a bond to produce the jewel back to the Department if the revision petition by the department was allowed.

3. The Court's decision was based on the fact that despite the lapse of several months since the order was issued, there had been no significant progress in the review application, and the absence of an interim stay on the Appellate Authority's order meant that the petitioner should benefit from the favorable decision until it was lawfully altered. Therefore, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition by instructing the return of the jewel to the petitioner, subject to the specified conditions, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition without imposing any costs on the parties involved.

---