https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205275 Questions over variation in the purity of seized gold ornaments were treated as factual rather than legal, because the number of ornaments and their total weight remained unchanged and the purity difference was explained by the testing method used by officers. The penalty issue was also regarded as governed by precedent on technical breach of statutory requirements, with the tribunal's refusal to treat the infraction as merely negligible accepted. The reference was therefore treated as raising no referable question of law under the Gold Control Act. en-us Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205275 Questions over variation in the purity of seized gold ornaments were treated as factual rather than legal, because the number of ornaments and their total weight remained unchanged and the purity difference was explained by the testing method used by officers. The penalty issue was also regarded as governed by precedent on technical breach of statutory requirements, with the tribunal's refusal to treat the infraction as merely negligible accepted. The reference was therefore treated as raising no referable question of law under the Gold Control Act. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205275