https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42027 Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act requires proof that the goods were imported or attempted to be imported contrary to law; mere seizure from a shop is insufficient, and confiscation was therefore unsustainable. Penalty under Section 112 also requires proof of the person's knowledge of, or connection with, the prohibited import, and the penalty could not stand once that foundation was absent. A revisional order cannot be supported on a ground not forming part of the original charge; the order based on the goods being kept for sale was liable to be quashed. The text states that the confiscation, penalty, and revisional order all failed for want of lawful basis. en-us Tue, 04 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:44:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42027 Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act requires proof that the goods were imported or attempted to be imported contrary to law; mere seizure from a shop is insufficient, and confiscation was therefore unsustainable. Penalty under Section 112 also requires proof of the person's knowledge of, or connection with, the prohibited import, and the penalty could not stand once that foundation was absent. A revisional order cannot be supported on a ground not forming part of the original charge; the order based on the goods being kept for sale was liable to be quashed. The text states that the confiscation, penalty, and revisional order all failed for want of lawful basis. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 04 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42027