https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81470 Imported goods covered by a valid DEEC/advance authorisation could not be confiscated merely because customs considered them technically unsuitable for the end product, where the licence itself imposed no thickness or gauge restriction and the export obligation had been fulfilled. The authorities could not go behind the licence to deny duty exemption or invoke Sections 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Promissory estoppel also bound the Government because importers altered their position on the representation underlying the scheme. With the confiscation failing, no independent basis remained for penalty under Section 112(a), so the penal action was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 31 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:36:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81470 Imported goods covered by a valid DEEC/advance authorisation could not be confiscated merely because customs considered them technically unsuitable for the end product, where the licence itself imposed no thickness or gauge restriction and the export obligation had been fulfilled. The authorities could not go behind the licence to deny duty exemption or invoke Sections 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Promissory estoppel also bound the Government because importers altered their position on the representation underlying the scheme. With the confiscation failing, no independent basis remained for penalty under Section 112(a), so the penal action was unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 31 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81470