https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396021 Gold jewellery imported as baggage could not be treated as prohibited goods because no prohibition under the Customs Act or a valid order under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act was shown, so confiscation under section 111(d) was not sustainable. However, baggage imports remained subject to declaration and quantity limits, and the excess jewellery was liable to confiscation for breach of baggage requirements; penalty under section 112(a) was therefore justified in principle, though the consequence was moderated. The result was partial relief: the prohibition-based confiscation was set aside, while penalty liability was maintained. en-us Mon, 08 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396021 Gold jewellery imported as baggage could not be treated as prohibited goods because no prohibition under the Customs Act or a valid order under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act was shown, so confiscation under section 111(d) was not sustainable. However, baggage imports remained subject to declaration and quantity limits, and the excess jewellery was liable to confiscation for breach of baggage requirements; penalty under section 112(a) was therefore justified in principle, though the consequence was moderated. The result was partial relief: the prohibition-based confiscation was set aside, while penalty liability was maintained. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396021