https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41336 Confiscation of smuggled gold as contraband in rem under the Sea Customs Act was held not to be displaced by the penal machinery of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, because the latter operated against the offender personally and was not attracted on the facts. The confiscation and option of fine in lieu of confiscation were upheld. However, the additional conditions requiring a Reserve Bank permit and payment of duty and charges for release of the gold were found to be without jurisdiction, though severable from the valid confiscation order. The constitutional challenge based on Article 19(1)(f) failed. en-us Fri, 09 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41336 Confiscation of smuggled gold as contraband in rem under the Sea Customs Act was held not to be displaced by the penal machinery of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, because the latter operated against the offender personally and was not attracted on the facts. The confiscation and option of fine in lieu of confiscation were upheld. However, the additional conditions requiring a Reserve Bank permit and payment of duty and charges for release of the gold were found to be without jurisdiction, though severable from the valid confiscation order. The constitutional challenge based on Article 19(1)(f) failed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 09 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41336