https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73175 Imported firearms sent as gifts were held to fall outside the import policy where the sender was not a close relation, making the basic eligibility condition unsatisfied. The absence of a Customs Clearance Permit was treated as a procedural lapse, but not the ative point because the permit could not have been issued where the policy requirement itself was not met. The distinction between prohibited and restricted goods was noted as settled for Section 125 of the Customs Act, and earlier redemption cases were not treated as comparable on their facts. On that basis, import of the firearms was in gross violation of the trade control regime and absolute confiscation was upheld. en-us Fri, 03 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73175 Imported firearms sent as gifts were held to fall outside the import policy where the sender was not a close relation, making the basic eligibility condition unsatisfied. The absence of a Customs Clearance Permit was treated as a procedural lapse, but not the ative point because the permit could not have been issued where the policy requirement itself was not met. The distinction between prohibited and restricted goods was noted as settled for Section 125 of the Customs Act, and earlier redemption cases were not treated as comparable on their facts. On that basis, import of the firearms was in gross violation of the trade control regime and absolute confiscation was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 03 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73175