https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90384 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order for lack of detailed consideration, remanding the case for de novo proceedings. The appellants' claim for restitution or compensation was denied, with the Tribunal holding that the sale proceeds from the public auction served as a substitute for the seized goods. The Customs authorities were found not accountable for the balance quantity of seized goods, as the appellants failed to follow proper procedures for rectification. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the adjudicating authority's decision on the issues raised. en-us Fri, 04 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:41:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90384 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order for lack of detailed consideration, remanding the case for de novo proceedings. The appellants' claim for restitution or compensation was denied, with the Tribunal holding that the sale proceeds from the public auction served as a substitute for the seized goods. The Customs authorities were found not accountable for the balance quantity of seized goods, as the appellants failed to follow proper procedures for rectification. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the adjudicating authority's decision on the issues raised. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 04 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90384