TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter of adjudication proceedings before the first respondent in O.S. No. 58/07-INT / O.S. No. 712/07-AIU and O - in - O No. 03/2010-COMMR (AIR) dated 14.7.2010. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Officers of Air Intelligence Unit intercepted the petitioner, who arrived from Bangkok on 14.11.2007 on suspicion that he might be carrying high valued goods in commercial quantity. Personal search of the petitioner resulted in the recovery of certain number of packets containing assorted precious/semi-precious stones valued at Rs. 20,14,460/-. The same were seized under a mahazar that they were attempted to be smuggled into India by way of mis-declaration and were finally confiscated under the provisions of Customs Act 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms Act, 1962 on Shri Zakir Ali Khan for having rendered the aforesaid goods liable to confiscation." 4. Thereafter, within the stipulated time of 45 days, the petitioner was not able to redeem the seized goods and the required penalty amount as well as redemption fine was also not paid. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that because of financial constraint, the petitioner's attempt to redeem the goods did not fructify. However, during the month of February 2015, the petitioner came to know that the goods seized are very much available with the authorities, he immediately arranged funds and approached the authorities by communication dated 02.02.2015 marking a copy to the third respondent for the purpose of exerci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... failed to exercise the option within 45 days and the present request after the period of 4 1/2 years, cannot be considered. Hence, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Heard both sides. 9. Admittedly, the representation of the petitioner followed by the reminders have not been considered. The respondents are obligatory under law to take a decision for allowing re-export of the goods on payment of aforesaid fine and penalty. Not having done so, has caused serious prejudice and hardship to the petitioner, despite the order of the first respondent, allowing redemption of the goods under seizure for confiscation for re-export. The petitioner has not received any notice from any higher forum than the first respondent, by which, the orde....