https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73935 Confiscation of seized gold and gold ornaments could not extend to property proved or plausibly shown to belong to customers, because third-party goods cannot be confiscated absent evidence that the owners knew of, or connived in, the contravention; the confiscation was therefore confined to the appellants' own liable gold. The appellants were, however, found to have breached the restrictions on possession of primary gold and the duty to maintain the prescribed register, since they admitted holding excess primary gold and had not kept the GS-13 accounts as required. Relief was correspondingly reduced by limiting the redemption fine to the appellants' own contravening goods, while the penalty remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 09 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jun 2011 15:58:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73935 Confiscation of seized gold and gold ornaments could not extend to property proved or plausibly shown to belong to customers, because third-party goods cannot be confiscated absent evidence that the owners knew of, or connived in, the contravention; the confiscation was therefore confined to the appellants' own liable gold. The appellants were, however, found to have breached the restrictions on possession of primary gold and the duty to maintain the prescribed register, since they admitted holding excess primary gold and had not kept the GS-13 accounts as required. Relief was correspondingly reduced by limiting the redemption fine to the appellants' own contravening goods, while the penalty remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Dec 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73935