https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40677 Wrong invocation of section 123 did not defeat confiscation where the goods fell within Chapter IVA, the relevant notifications were in force, and the possessor failed to produce satisfactory proof of lawful acquisition; confiscation under section 111(p) was upheld. Delay beyond the section 110(2) notice period conferred a right to return of seized goods, but it did not nullify confiscation or penalty proceedings on the merits. The penalty under section 112(b) was also maintained because the goods were treated as contraband, the quantity involved justified deterrence, and no reduction was warranted. en-us Wed, 22 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 May 2010 12:09:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40677 Wrong invocation of section 123 did not defeat confiscation where the goods fell within Chapter IVA, the relevant notifications were in force, and the possessor failed to produce satisfactory proof of lawful acquisition; confiscation under section 111(p) was upheld. Delay beyond the section 110(2) notice period conferred a right to return of seized goods, but it did not nullify confiscation or penalty proceedings on the merits. The penalty under section 112(b) was also maintained because the goods were treated as contraband, the quantity involved justified deterrence, and no reduction was warranted. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 22 Aug 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40677