https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91496 Customs lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate non-repatriation of export proceeds because that issue fell under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the enforcement scheme vested authority elsewhere. The charge of misdeclaration of quantity failed since the goods had been tampered with in custody, the exporter promptly reported the matter, and amended shipping bills reflected the true quantity after 100% examination. The allegation of misdeclaration of value also failed because the Department relied on late market material for branded goods, while the exports were unbranded and not shown to be comparable. Redemption fine could not stand where the goods were already exported and no lawful basis for confiscation or enforceable security was shown. en-us Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2025 19:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91496 Customs lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate non-repatriation of export proceeds because that issue fell under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the enforcement scheme vested authority elsewhere. The charge of misdeclaration of quantity failed since the goods had been tampered with in custody, the exporter promptly reported the matter, and amended shipping bills reflected the true quantity after 100% examination. The allegation of misdeclaration of value also failed because the Department relied on late market material for branded goods, while the exports were unbranded and not shown to be comparable. Redemption fine could not stand where the goods were already exported and no lawful basis for confiscation or enforceable security was shown. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91496