https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290306 The court held that the impugned order of confiscation and penalty under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act could not be upheld, following the Supreme Court's decision in Sreeram's case. The court determined that the 1969 amendment to Section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act did not apply retrospectively. While upholding the confiscation order under Section 167(37), the court quashed the personal penalty of Rs. 35,000 imposed on the respondent. The court directed the refund of the penalty amount and Rs. 2,00,000 deposited with the Registrar, Original Side, to the appellants. en-us Tue, 24 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290306 The court held that the impugned order of confiscation and penalty under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act could not be upheld, following the Supreme Court's decision in Sreeram's case. The court determined that the 1969 amendment to Section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act did not apply retrospectively. While upholding the confiscation order under Section 167(37), the court quashed the personal penalty of Rs. 35,000 imposed on the respondent. The court directed the refund of the penalty amount and Rs. 2,00,000 deposited with the Registrar, Original Side, to the appellants. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 24 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290306