https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84560 Professional cine equipment brought by a passenger fell within Rule 3(2) of the Tourist Baggage Rules, 1978, which expressly covers professional equipment for duty-free import on an undertaking for re-export. Its intended studio use did not remove it from that exemption. The record showed proper declaration, a re-export undertaking, and steps taken to extend time, so mere availability of another lawful import route did not establish suppression, mala fides, or intent to evade duty. On those facts, confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act was not warranted, and the clearance was treated as bona fide. en-us Wed, 04 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:59:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84560 Professional cine equipment brought by a passenger fell within Rule 3(2) of the Tourist Baggage Rules, 1978, which expressly covers professional equipment for duty-free import on an undertaking for re-export. Its intended studio use did not remove it from that exemption. The record showed proper declaration, a re-export undertaking, and steps taken to extend time, so mere availability of another lawful import route did not establish suppression, mala fides, or intent to evade duty. On those facts, confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act was not warranted, and the clearance was treated as bona fide. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 04 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84560