The court emphasized that penalties imposed on one individual should not hinder the rights of others and directed the release of the goods for re-export.

1. It has been stated that the petitioner is a Non-resident Indian employed in Singapore. He has been issued with the passport, bearing passport No.B3003988. The petitioner had arrived at the Chennai Airport, from Singapore, on 11.10.2009. The petitioner was carrying with him gold chains weighing 297 grams, valued at Rs.3,59,073/-. The petitioner being a Non-resident Indian, was eligible to import gold chains as part of his baggage, availing the benefits under the Notification No.31/2003-Customs, dated 1.3.2003, which provides for the bringing of gold/gold jewellery, at a concessional rate of duty at Rs.50/- per gram, on certain conditions.

2. In the said notification it has been stated that the gold imported should not be over 10 kilograms and that the person bringing the gold should have stayed abroad for a period of not less than six months. Since, the petitioner had satisfied all the necessary conditions he is eligible to bring gold ornaments, as part of his baggage. However, the customs authorities attached to the Air Intelligence Unit had intercepted the petitioner and several others, who were bringing gold, as part of the baggage and had seized the gold ornaments from them. According to the respondent customs department the petitioner and the others were only carriers of gold ornaments, which were being brought for some unknown operator.

3. It had also been stated that investigation had been carried out, with regard to one Rahamathullah, who is alleged to have helped and abetted in the illegal import of gold jewellery, on behalf of an unidentified operator. Pursuant to the said investigation, the case was taken up for adjudication, by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Airport), without issuing a show cause notice. Under the order, dated 11.10.2009, the adjudicating authority had confiscated the gold chains, absolutely, under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. A penalty of Rs.10,000/- had also been imposed on the petitioner, under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. A further penalty of Rs.5,000/- had also been imposed on the said Rahamathullah, under Section 112 of the said Act, on fifteen counts, amounting to a total sum of Rs.75,000/-.

4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Chennai, challenging the absolute confiscation of the goods in question and against the imposition of penalty. The appeal was taken up for disposal, along with the appeals filed by the other persons, from whom gold jewellery had been seized. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and the others, including the said Rahamathullah, as to why the penalty imposed on them should not be enhanced, in terms of the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 128 A of the Customs Act, 1962. The other appeals and the show cause notice had been taken up for hearing and a common order, dated 5.2.2010, had been issued setting aside the order of absolute confiscation and had allowed re-export of the gold ornaments, on payment of a redemption fine of Rs.36,000/-, besides a penalty of Rs.20,000/-. The penalty of Rs.5000/- imposed on the said Rahamathullah, had been enhanced to Rs.25,000/-, in each case.

5. It has been further stated that the petitioner had paid the fine and penalty and had sought for the re-export of the seized ornaments. The payment of fine and the enhanced portion of the penalty had been done, immediately, after the receipt of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), dated 5.2.2010. Under the said order the petitioner has to exercise the option to re-export the gold, within a period of 60 days. However, for reasons best known to the respondents the goods had not been released for re-export, in spite of the payment of fine and penalty. Since, no appeal or revision had been filed against the order of th