https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41130 Seizure of gold and gold ornaments was treated as valid for penalty under Rule 126L(16) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 where the officers had a reasonable belief that those Rules were contravened, and the later release order also indicated a connection with those Rules. The absence of a separate proceeding specifically framed under the Defence of India Rules did not invalidate the action taken under them. Proceedings under the Customs Act were treated as independent, so the earlier confiscation and personal penalty under that Act did not justify interference with the revision order. en-us Mon, 30 Oct 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 May 2010 11:51:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41130 Seizure of gold and gold ornaments was treated as valid for penalty under Rule 126L(16) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 where the officers had a reasonable belief that those Rules were contravened, and the later release order also indicated a connection with those Rules. The absence of a separate proceeding specifically framed under the Defence of India Rules did not invalidate the action taken under them. Proceedings under the Customs Act were treated as independent, so the earlier confiscation and personal penalty under that Act did not justify interference with the revision order. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 30 Oct 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41130