https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85654 A claim to concessional duty under Notification No. 6/94 did not, by itself, constitute misdeclaration for confiscation under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The imported goods were described in the bill of entry and invoice as Tetra Methyl quanidine, and the dispute was only whether they qualified as a bulk drug for concessional duty. Because the goods description matched the import documents, the ingredients of misdeclaration were not established. Confiscation and penalty were therefore not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Aug 2011 13:33:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85654 A claim to concessional duty under Notification No. 6/94 did not, by itself, constitute misdeclaration for confiscation under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The imported goods were described in the bill of entry and invoice as Tetra Methyl quanidine, and the dispute was only whether they qualified as a bulk drug for concessional duty. Because the goods description matched the import documents, the ingredients of misdeclaration were not established. Confiscation and penalty were therefore not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 05 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85654