https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72938 A confiscation order under the Customs Act could not stand where the Superintendent of Customs adjudicated goods valued above the statutory limit for his limited jurisdiction under section 122. Confiscation under sections 111(d) and 111(p) also failed because the baggage receipt was accepted as genuine, the Department did not prove illegal import or breach of the notification requirements, and the claim of personal use was not disproved. The Baggage (Conditions of Exemption) Rules, 1975 likewise did not support confiscation, as the alleged depreciation and duty-related breach were not established by evidence. The goods were therefore to be released. en-us Wed, 15 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 May 2011 10:40:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72938 A confiscation order under the Customs Act could not stand where the Superintendent of Customs adjudicated goods valued above the statutory limit for his limited jurisdiction under section 122. Confiscation under sections 111(d) and 111(p) also failed because the baggage receipt was accepted as genuine, the Department did not prove illegal import or breach of the notification requirements, and the claim of personal use was not disproved. The Baggage (Conditions of Exemption) Rules, 1975 likewise did not support confiscation, as the alleged depreciation and duty-related breach were not established by evidence. The goods were therefore to be released. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 15 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72938