https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45666 Distinct customs offences under sections 167(3), 167(8) and 167(37) could be invoked on the same facts because each provision contained different ingredients, so simultaneous confiscatory and penal action was valid. Indian currency attempted to be exported without permission was treated as prohibited goods for section 167(8) purposes by virtue of the deeming provision in the foreign exchange law, making it liable to confiscation and penalty. Section 167(8) was construed as authorising either a value-linked penalty up to three times the goods' value or an alternative fixed penalty up to Rs. 1,000, so the higher penalty was not invalid. The adjudication was also not vitiated because the order was passed by the Additional Collector, who was competent to decide the matter. en-us Thu, 16 Jun 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:18:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45666 Distinct customs offences under sections 167(3), 167(8) and 167(37) could be invoked on the same facts because each provision contained different ingredients, so simultaneous confiscatory and penal action was valid. Indian currency attempted to be exported without permission was treated as prohibited goods for section 167(8) purposes by virtue of the deeming provision in the foreign exchange law, making it liable to confiscation and penalty. Section 167(8) was construed as authorising either a value-linked penalty up to three times the goods' value or an alternative fixed penalty up to Rs. 1,000, so the higher penalty was not invalid. The adjudication was also not vitiated because the order was passed by the Additional Collector, who was competent to decide the matter. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 16 Jun 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45666