https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80136 Declaration under the gold-control provisions arose only where the person owned, possessed, held or controlled the gold in the relevant legal capacity, and a licensed dealer or partner was not automatically bound to declare another person's property. On the facts, the seized gold in the joint locker was treated as the wife's streedhana property, with her prior declaration accepted, so the appellant was not required to declare it. Confiscation could not be sustained without findings that the gold belonged to the appellant or joint family, or that the wife knew of or connived in any contravention; the confiscation order was therefore set aside with consequential refund of the redemption fine. en-us Wed, 09 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:32:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80136 Declaration under the gold-control provisions arose only where the person owned, possessed, held or controlled the gold in the relevant legal capacity, and a licensed dealer or partner was not automatically bound to declare another person's property. On the facts, the seized gold in the joint locker was treated as the wife's streedhana property, with her prior declaration accepted, so the appellant was not required to declare it. Confiscation could not be sustained without findings that the gold belonged to the appellant or joint family, or that the wife knew of or connived in any contravention; the confiscation order was therefore set aside with consequential refund of the redemption fine. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 09 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80136