Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of HC determined that absolute confiscation of undeclared gold carried by travelers without offering redemption option violates customs regulations. While gold import is restricted and regulated, not prohibited, travelers must pay appropriate customs duty whether wearing or carrying gold ornaments. The court set aside the impugned order of absolute confiscation, holding that Section 125 of Customs Act requires authorities to offer redemption option for non-prohibited goods. Matter remitted to Joint Commissioner of Customs to determine appropriate redemption fine. Court emphasized distinction between restricted versus prohibited goods, confirming gold falls under former category requiring regulated import rather than outright prohibition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
