TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether imported gold, being subject to restrictions, could be treated as prohibited goods so as to sustain confiscation; (ii) Whether the miscellaneous applications seeking rectification of the earlier order were maintainable.
Issue (i): Whether imported gold, being subject to restrictions, could be treated as prohibited goods so as to sustain confiscation.
Analysis: The order applied the principle that the expression "any prohibition" in section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 is of wide amplitude and includes restrictions. On that basis, import restrictions on gold were treated as a form of prohibition, making the goods liable to confiscation. The cited Supreme Court authority was relied upon for the proposition that restriction is one species of prohibition under customs law.
Conclusion: The imported gold was correctly treated as prohibited goods and absolute confiscation was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the miscellaneous applications seeking rectification of the earlier order were maintainable.
Analysis: The applications sought to reopen the earlier Bench order by way of rectification. The order held that such a course was impermissible and that the relief claimed could not be granted through rectification proceedings.
Conclusion: The miscellaneous applications were not maintainable and were rejected.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal sustained the confiscation and declined to interfere through rectification, leaving the appellant without relief.
Ratio Decidendi: For customs purposes, a restriction on import falls within the expression "any prohibition" in section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and a rectification proceeding cannot be used to obtain a review of an earlier final order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
