https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72954 Liability under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 read with the Gold Control Act, 1968 was treated as distinct from penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 because each regime addressed different conduct and legal ingredients. Abetment-related exoneration under the Customs Act did not bar independent action where contraband gold was found in the conscious possession and control of the persons concerned, since gold-control liability arose from possession, acquisition, control, or dealing in gold. Authorities on double jeopardy and general statutory construction were held inapplicable on these facts. The same reasoning disposed of the proposed questions of law, so no separate referable question remained and the reference application was not maintainable. en-us Mon, 13 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 May 2011 11:41:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72954 Liability under the Defence of India Rules, 1962 read with the Gold Control Act, 1968 was treated as distinct from penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 because each regime addressed different conduct and legal ingredients. Abetment-related exoneration under the Customs Act did not bar independent action where contraband gold was found in the conscious possession and control of the persons concerned, since gold-control liability arose from possession, acquisition, control, or dealing in gold. Authorities on double jeopardy and general statutory construction were held inapplicable on these facts. The same reasoning disposed of the proposed questions of law, so no separate referable question remained and the reference application was not maintainable. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 13 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72954