https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81757 Confiscation of a truck under customs law required proof that it was used in an attempt to export goods contrary to law. The adjudicating authority relied on undisclosed seizure materials and confessional statements not set out in the show-cause notice, depriving the noticee of a fair opportunity to meet the case. On the evidence, the department failed to establish that the truck was used for transport to Nepal, so confiscation was not sustainable. Because penalty under customs law depended on proof of conduct rendering the goods liable to confiscation, and that foundation was not proved, the penalty against the truck owner also failed. en-us Fri, 10 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:42:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81757 Confiscation of a truck under customs law required proof that it was used in an attempt to export goods contrary to law. The adjudicating authority relied on undisclosed seizure materials and confessional statements not set out in the show-cause notice, depriving the noticee of a fair opportunity to meet the case. On the evidence, the department failed to establish that the truck was used for transport to Nepal, so confiscation was not sustainable. Because penalty under customs law depended on proof of conduct rendering the goods liable to confiscation, and that foundation was not proved, the penalty against the truck owner also failed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 10 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81757