https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73720 Imported gold ornaments could not be treated as bullion on mere visual inspection; the commentary states that a finding of bullion required acceptable evidence, and the confiscation on that basis was not sustainable. Gold bangles openly worn by family members were also not liable to confiscation for non-declaration, because the declaration requirement was directed to baggage contents, not visible articles on the person, and there was no finding of concealment. The personal penalty likewise fell once the confiscation failed. Only a limited remand remained for fresh consideration of eligibility for baggage-rule relief and any consequential duty treatment. en-us Mon, 03 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:15:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73720 Imported gold ornaments could not be treated as bullion on mere visual inspection; the commentary states that a finding of bullion required acceptable evidence, and the confiscation on that basis was not sustainable. Gold bangles openly worn by family members were also not liable to confiscation for non-declaration, because the declaration requirement was directed to baggage contents, not visible articles on the person, and there was no finding of concealment. The personal penalty likewise fell once the confiscation failed. Only a limited remand remained for fresh consideration of eligibility for baggage-rule relief and any consequential duty treatment. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 03 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73720