https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81072 Imported goods were found to match the import documents, shipping marks and seizure list, and corroborating exporter confirmation supported the explanation for the origin-mark discrepancy. Minor differences in package description and the reference to Hong Kong instead of China were insufficient to displace the identity of the goods, so confiscation could not be sustained on the facts. Once the foundation for confiscation failed, the penalty also lacked legal basis because the department had not established illicit importation. The goods were directed to be released and the penalty order was annulled. en-us Sun, 25 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:42:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81072 Imported goods were found to match the import documents, shipping marks and seizure list, and corroborating exporter confirmation supported the explanation for the origin-mark discrepancy. Minor differences in package description and the reference to Hong Kong instead of China were insufficient to displace the identity of the goods, so confiscation could not be sustained on the facts. Once the foundation for confiscation failed, the penalty also lacked legal basis because the department had not established illicit importation. The goods were directed to be released and the penalty order was annulled. Case-Laws Customs Sun, 25 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81072