Gold Redemption Order Overturned; Case Sent Back for New Hearing on Disposed Gold Bars, Resolution Urged in 3 Months.

The Court set aside the impugned order of the Principal Commissioner & Ex-Officio, which had allowed the petitioner to redeem seized gold bars for re-export, due to the fact that the gold bars had already been disposed of prior to the order. The case was remitted back to the Revisional Authority for a fresh order, with instructions to issue notices for a new hearing and resolve the matter expeditiously, ideally within three months, considering the case's age and the original seizure in 2013.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the impugning of an order passed by the Principal Commissioner & Ex-Officio, Additional Secretary to Government of India regarding the confiscation and penalty imposed for smuggling of gold bars.

Confiscation of gold bars:
The petitioner was apprehended with two gold bars of one kilogram each concealed in sealed pockets. The gold bars were seized and an order was passed confiscating the gold bars under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, a penalty of Rs.10,00,000 was imposed on the petitioner for smuggling the gold bars. The order in original was challenged before the Commissioner of Appeals and subsequently, a revision was filed before the Principal Commissioner & Ex-Officio, Additional Secretary to Government of India.

Decision and subsequent issues:
The Principal Commissioner, in the impugned order, set aside the previous orders and allowed the petitioner to redeem the gold bars for re-export on payment of a redemption fine of Rs.25,00,000 and reduced the penalty to Rs.8,00,000. However, it was later discovered that the Customs had already disposed of the seized gold bars before the impugned order was passed. This crucial fact was not brought to the attention of the Principal Commissioner, leading to the passing of the impugned order.

Court's direction:
The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the Revisional Authority to pass a fresh order considering the fact that the gold bars had already been disposed of. The Revisional Authority was directed to issue notices to the petitioner and other relevant parties for a fresh hearing. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of the matter, preferably within three months, due to the age of the case and the seizure of the gold bars dating back to 2013.

---