https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41053 Confiscation of seized goods is not a punishment under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, which authorises only imprisonment, fine, or both. Confiscation is separately governed by Section 111 and must be ordered through the proper customs mechanism by the competent authority. Where customs authorities had already proceeded under the Act, the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to direct a fresh confiscation in favour of the Punjab State. The High Court could invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to delete that patent illegality, while leaving the conviction and remaining sentence undisturbed. en-us Fri, 10 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 May 2010 16:26:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41053 Confiscation of seized goods is not a punishment under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, which authorises only imprisonment, fine, or both. Confiscation is separately governed by Section 111 and must be ordered through the proper customs mechanism by the competent authority. Where customs authorities had already proceeded under the Act, the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to direct a fresh confiscation in favour of the Punjab State. The High Court could invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to delete that patent illegality, while leaving the conviction and remaining sentence undisturbed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 10 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41053