https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94181 Import benefit under the relevant public notice was interpreted pragmatically rather than in a strictly individualistic way. Where the appellant had lived abroad with her family, the car had been purchased by the husband, and it had been used and kept for the family, the authorities were treated as having erred in ignoring family possession and use. Since the remaining conditions of the public notice were satisfied, denial of the import benefit was considered unduly technical and harsh. The confiscation and penalty were therefore set aside in favour of the appellant. en-us Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:11:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94181 Import benefit under the relevant public notice was interpreted pragmatically rather than in a strictly individualistic way. Where the appellant had lived abroad with her family, the car had been purchased by the husband, and it had been used and kept for the family, the authorities were treated as having erred in ignoring family possession and use. Since the remaining conditions of the public notice were satisfied, denial of the import benefit was considered unduly technical and harsh. The confiscation and penalty were therefore set aside in favour of the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94181