https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100633 Gold confiscation was sustained because the claimants failed to prove possession or ownership with credible evidence; their challenge to the Collector's rejection of the claims therefore failed. The alleged keeping of the gold with Bhargav Shah was not supported by convincing material, including the missing register and the fact that the place of work was elsewhere. Although the contravention justified confiscation under the gold control requirements, absolute confiscation was considered too severe. The proper relief was confiscation with an option of redemption on payment of fine, so limited relief was granted while the substantive challenge was rejected. en-us Mon, 03 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:22:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100633 Gold confiscation was sustained because the claimants failed to prove possession or ownership with credible evidence; their challenge to the Collector's rejection of the claims therefore failed. The alleged keeping of the gold with Bhargav Shah was not supported by convincing material, including the missing register and the fact that the place of work was elsewhere. Although the contravention justified confiscation under the gold control requirements, absolute confiscation was considered too severe. The proper relief was confiscation with an option of redemption on payment of fine, so limited relief was granted while the substantive challenge was rejected. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 03 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100633