https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72879 Unauthorised acquisition and possession of primary gold justified confiscation, but the prevailing departmental practice of allowing redemption on payment of fine was applied, so the gold was directed to be released on payment of redemption fine while the confiscation itself was maintained. The penalty imposed under the confiscation order was not interfered with because no appealable or factual basis was shown to disturb it and the issue was not pressed on merits. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72879 Unauthorised acquisition and possession of primary gold justified confiscation, but the prevailing departmental practice of allowing redemption on payment of fine was applied, so the gold was directed to be released on payment of redemption fine while the confiscation itself was maintained. The penalty imposed under the confiscation order was not interfered with because no appealable or factual basis was shown to disturb it and the issue was not pressed on merits. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 30 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72879