https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84981 An apparent discrepancy between the shipping bill weight and the verified export weight did not, by itself, justify confiscation or penalty where no export prohibition on tyres and tubes was shown. The dispute also involved a DEEC prior export claim, and the appellant's contention that earlier exports had already covered the licence quantity required examination of the DEEC book and supporting records. Because that factual inquiry had not been undertaken, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of whether any real contravention existed and whether confiscation and penalty were warranted. en-us Thu, 29 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Aug 2011 18:37:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84981 An apparent discrepancy between the shipping bill weight and the verified export weight did not, by itself, justify confiscation or penalty where no export prohibition on tyres and tubes was shown. The dispute also involved a DEEC prior export claim, and the appellant's contention that earlier exports had already covered the licence quantity required examination of the DEEC book and supporting records. Because that factual inquiry had not been undertaken, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of whether any real contravention existed and whether confiscation and penalty were warranted. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 29 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84981