https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74897 Where imported goods were already manifested and entered in the name of the importer shown in the original documents, a later claimant could not require a fresh bill of entry to be received for the same goods once the customs position had crystallised. Amendment of the manifest was not available because the supporting licence had been cancelled as fraudulently obtained and the later request came after importation and filing. Confiscation was also upheld because the goods were imported contrary to law when no valid licence existed at the time of import, and a subsequent request for re-export or re-shipment could not be claimed as of right after confiscation. en-us Sun, 19 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:59:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74897 Where imported goods were already manifested and entered in the name of the importer shown in the original documents, a later claimant could not require a fresh bill of entry to be received for the same goods once the customs position had crystallised. Amendment of the manifest was not available because the supporting licence had been cancelled as fraudulently obtained and the later request came after importation and filing. Confiscation was also upheld because the goods were imported contrary to law when no valid licence existed at the time of import, and a subsequent request for re-export or re-shipment could not be claimed as of right after confiscation. Case-Laws Customs Sun, 19 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74897