https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41356 Rule 126L(2) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963, read with Rule 156, did not authorise seizure of books or documents during a gold-control search; the later express amendment showed that no such power existed earlier, so that seizure was invalid. By contrast, Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 permitted seizure of documents relevant to customs proceedings by a proper officer, and legal possession could suffice even without immediate physical custody, so the seizure was valid. Section 105 of the Customs Act allowed a general search for relevant or secreted documents without identifying particular documents in advance, provided the officer had reason to believe they existed and were relevant; the search authorisation was therefore valid. en-us Thu, 09 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:16:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41356 Rule 126L(2) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963, read with Rule 156, did not authorise seizure of books or documents during a gold-control search; the later express amendment showed that no such power existed earlier, so that seizure was invalid. By contrast, Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 permitted seizure of documents relevant to customs proceedings by a proper officer, and legal possession could suffice even without immediate physical custody, so the seizure was valid. Section 105 of the Customs Act allowed a general search for relevant or secreted documents without identifying particular documents in advance, provided the officer had reason to believe they existed and were relevant; the search authorisation was therefore valid. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 09 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41356