https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80012 Goods moved under the Indo-Nepal Treaty of Trade and Transit were held not to be liable to confiscation and redemption fine under the Customs Act merely for delay in transit, because treaty implementation into the Act required a notification under section 11(2)(r), which was not shown. A quantity later accepted by the department as part of the same CTD-linked consignment could not be separately treated as unclaimed goods, so confiscation was unsustainable and the deposit had to be refunded. For the remaining quantity, defects in seizure particulars and the absence of a proper inquiry on ownership and CTD linkage required de novo consideration, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. en-us Tue, 15 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:10:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80012 Goods moved under the Indo-Nepal Treaty of Trade and Transit were held not to be liable to confiscation and redemption fine under the Customs Act merely for delay in transit, because treaty implementation into the Act required a notification under section 11(2)(r), which was not shown. A quantity later accepted by the department as part of the same CTD-linked consignment could not be separately treated as unclaimed goods, so confiscation was unsustainable and the deposit had to be refunded. For the remaining quantity, defects in seizure particulars and the absence of a proper inquiry on ownership and CTD linkage required de novo consideration, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 15 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80012