https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83804 Confiscation, redemption fine, penalties and customs duty could not be sustained where the department failed to prove that the perforating machines were foreign-origin or smuggled goods. The alleged admissions in letters to the investigating bureau were disputed and did not amount to an acceptance of unlawful acquisition or liability to confiscation and penalty. A demand for declarations that no duty had been paid, that any payment was voluntary, and that no refund would be claimed could not replace proof of smuggled import. The DGTD letter was treated as inconclusive, so the statutory basis for confiscation, fine, penalties and duty demand failed. en-us Mon, 12 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jul 2011 18:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83804 Confiscation, redemption fine, penalties and customs duty could not be sustained where the department failed to prove that the perforating machines were foreign-origin or smuggled goods. The alleged admissions in letters to the investigating bureau were disputed and did not amount to an acceptance of unlawful acquisition or liability to confiscation and penalty. A demand for declarations that no duty had been paid, that any payment was voluntary, and that no refund would be claimed could not replace proof of smuggled import. The DGTD letter was treated as inconclusive, so the statutory basis for confiscation, fine, penalties and duty demand failed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 12 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83804