https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88901 Customs authorities could not deny clearance of re-imported diamonds or sustain confiscation where an earlier appellate order had already treated the consignment as re-imported goods and allowed release. That order had attained finality because the Revenue did not challenge it, so the issue could not be reopened at the stage of physical clearance by raising a fresh objection under Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962. The explanation for the absence of customs seals was also accepted as reasonable in light of the opening and inventory of the parcel on return. Clearance was therefore to be allowed and confiscation could not stand. en-us Mon, 22 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:16:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88901 Customs authorities could not deny clearance of re-imported diamonds or sustain confiscation where an earlier appellate order had already treated the consignment as re-imported goods and allowed release. That order had attained finality because the Revenue did not challenge it, so the issue could not be reopened at the stage of physical clearance by raising a fresh objection under Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962. The explanation for the absence of customs seals was also accepted as reasonable in light of the opening and inventory of the parcel on return. Clearance was therefore to be allowed and confiscation could not stand. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 22 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88901