https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372599 The appeal challenged the quashing of the seizure order of two gold rings and the directive to deposit 50% duty for the seized items. The court found that the respondent, who stayed overseas for less than six months, exceeded the allowable limit for gold, potentially engaging in smuggling. The court upheld the duty payment requirement and allowed further proceedings under Section 124 of the Customs Act, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing the need for compliance with the law. en-us Thu, 11 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Feb 2019 12:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372599 The appeal challenged the quashing of the seizure order of two gold rings and the directive to deposit 50% duty for the seized items. The court found that the respondent, who stayed overseas for less than six months, exceeded the allowable limit for gold, potentially engaging in smuggling. The court upheld the duty payment requirement and allowed further proceedings under Section 124 of the Customs Act, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing the need for compliance with the law. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 11 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372599