https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80156 Correct description in the bills of entry negatived confiscation for misdeclaration under Section 111(m) because the finding was based only on price comparison with different deniers, not on contemporaneous imports of identical goods. The goods remained liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) since the REP licences did not cover the imported blended silk wool yarn, making the import unauthorised. The penalty under Section 112 was reduced because the misdeclaration charge failed, but it was still sustained in modified form due to attempted duty-free clearance despite knowledge of the wrong shipment. Re-export was permitted only on payment of redemption fine, not free of fine. en-us Fri, 17 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:23:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80156 Correct description in the bills of entry negatived confiscation for misdeclaration under Section 111(m) because the finding was based only on price comparison with different deniers, not on contemporaneous imports of identical goods. The goods remained liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) since the REP licences did not cover the imported blended silk wool yarn, making the import unauthorised. The penalty under Section 112 was reduced because the misdeclaration charge failed, but it was still sustained in modified form due to attempted duty-free clearance despite knowledge of the wrong shipment. Re-export was permitted only on payment of redemption fine, not free of fine. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 17 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80156