https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167048 Restrictions under Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were deemed to be restrictions under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 by virtue of Section 67, so a separate notification was not required and the Customs authorities could proceed with confiscation and penalty. On the evidence, concealment of foreign currency in the first appellant's briefcase and the surrounding contradictions were sufficient to sustain the penalty against him. For the second appellant, there was no independent proof of conscious participation, possession, or knowledge, so suspicion and association were insufficient to sustain abetment liability under the Customs Act; the penalty against him was set aside. en-us Wed, 02 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Dec 2014 15:13:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167048 Restrictions under Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were deemed to be restrictions under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 by virtue of Section 67, so a separate notification was not required and the Customs authorities could proceed with confiscation and penalty. On the evidence, concealment of foreign currency in the first appellant's briefcase and the surrounding contradictions were sufficient to sustain the penalty against him. For the second appellant, there was no independent proof of conscious participation, possession, or knowledge, so suspicion and association were insufficient to sustain abetment liability under the Customs Act; the penalty against him was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 02 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167048