https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45668 The delegated customs power was held validly exercised by the Assistant Collector, because the authorisation under the Sea Customs Act permitted Assistant Collectors-in-Charge of Appraisement to act under section 182(a), and the publication requirement in section 204 did not affect the delegation's validity. The allegation of mala fides and dictation also failed, as the officer had sought advice but retained and exercised his own discretion. However, confiscation and redemption fine could not stand where the goods had already been sold by the Port Authorities before the order was made, because they had ceased to be the petitioner's property and the statutory confiscation remedy had become ineffective. en-us Mon, 26 May 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:30:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45668 The delegated customs power was held validly exercised by the Assistant Collector, because the authorisation under the Sea Customs Act permitted Assistant Collectors-in-Charge of Appraisement to act under section 182(a), and the publication requirement in section 204 did not affect the delegation's validity. The allegation of mala fides and dictation also failed, as the officer had sought advice but retained and exercised his own discretion. However, confiscation and redemption fine could not stand where the goods had already been sold by the Port Authorities before the order was made, because they had ceased to be the petitioner's property and the statutory confiscation remedy had become ineffective. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 26 May 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45668