https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80123 Seized Krugerrands were treated as gold articles, not ornaments, because they were not finished personal adornments; in the absence of proof of lawful import, absolute confiscation was upheld. The Customs penalty on the partner failed because the record did not establish knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation, and the show cause notice did not plead the necessary basis. Penalties against the firm under the Gold (Control) Act and the Customs Act also failed, as its records were in order and no material linked it to the seizure or to any act, omission, or abetment attracting liability. Partial relief was granted. en-us Fri, 21 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:41:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80123 Seized Krugerrands were treated as gold articles, not ornaments, because they were not finished personal adornments; in the absence of proof of lawful import, absolute confiscation was upheld. The Customs penalty on the partner failed because the record did not establish knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation, and the show cause notice did not plead the necessary basis. Penalties against the firm under the Gold (Control) Act and the Customs Act also failed, as its records were in order and no material linked it to the seizure or to any act, omission, or abetment attracting liability. Partial relief was granted. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 21 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80123