Customs limitation cannot be imported where the special statute is silent, and confiscated gold must be released.

Where the customs statute does not prescribe a limitation period for a claim to return confiscated gold, the claim cannot be defeated by importing the Limitation Act. The commentary states that delay by itself does not transfer title to the Government, and departmental action must remain within the express powers of the parent fiscal statute. On that basis, a refusal grounded only on a legal opinion and unsupported by specific statutory authority is unsustainable, and release of the gold follows as the appropriate relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's claim for release of the confiscated gold could be rejected as barred by limitation, and whether the departmental refusal had any legal basis under the customs law.

Analysis: The denial of release rested only on the opinion of the Ministry of Law. The governing customs framework did not show any express limitation provision applicable to the claim for return of the gold. The ownership of the gold remained with the appellant, and the fact that the claim was made after a long delay did not by itself transfer title to the Government. The authorities under a fiscal statute must act within the bounds of that statute, and limitation under the general Limitation Act cannot be imported into proceedings under revenue enactments where the special law does not provide for it. The refusal was therefore unsupported by any cogent statutory authority.

Conclusion: The rejection of the claim as time-barred was unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to return of the gold.

Final Conclusion: The departmental refusal to release the gold was set aside and consequential relief followed in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent fiscal statute does not prescribe a limitation period, the claim cannot be defeated by importing the Limitation Act, and the authority must act strictly within the four corners of the parent Act.

---