https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91689 Confiscation of imported goods under section 111(d) and section 111(m) was held unsustainable because the order did not record a valid basis for rejecting the import licence, even though the alleged breach was only under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and the Imports (Control) Order. Confiscation under clause (m) also failed since the bill of entry and invoice did not describe the goods as a particular kind of steel, and a claim for exemption did not itself prove deliberate false declaration. On the facts, the importer's understanding that iron and steel included stainless steel was not treated as misdeclaration, so the penalty also could not survive. en-us Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:19:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91689 Confiscation of imported goods under section 111(d) and section 111(m) was held unsustainable because the order did not record a valid basis for rejecting the import licence, even though the alleged breach was only under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and the Imports (Control) Order. Confiscation under clause (m) also failed since the bill of entry and invoice did not describe the goods as a particular kind of steel, and a claim for exemption did not itself prove deliberate false declaration. On the facts, the importer's understanding that iron and steel included stainless steel was not treated as misdeclaration, so the penalty also could not survive. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91689