https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90653 Failure to obtain an Import Export Code before importing an excimer laser was treated as a procedural lapse under the Foreign Trade regime, not as an import in contravention of a prohibition for purposes of confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Confiscation was therefore not justified and was set aside. A penalty could still be imposed for the technical non-compliance, but it had to be proportionate to the nature and gravity of the default; the original penalty was found excessive and reduced to a nominal amount. The ruling draws a distinction between procedural non-observance and substantive illegality in import control compliance. en-us Sat, 18 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:47:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90653 Failure to obtain an Import Export Code before importing an excimer laser was treated as a procedural lapse under the Foreign Trade regime, not as an import in contravention of a prohibition for purposes of confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Confiscation was therefore not justified and was set aside. A penalty could still be imposed for the technical non-compliance, but it had to be proportionate to the nature and gravity of the default; the original penalty was found excessive and reduced to a nominal amount. The ruling draws a distinction between procedural non-observance and substantive illegality in import control compliance. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 18 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90653